Category: Speeches

Keir Starmer – 2020 Christmas Message

The Christmas message from Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 24 December 2020.

I want to wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

It’s is a time to celebrate and come together with our family and friends.

It’s a time for Christians in Britain and across the world to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

The values of Christianity of generosity, of kindness and hope, Have shone through this year.

In every village, every town and every city we have seen the very best of Britain.

The key workers who have been our country’s rock.

The servicemen and servicewomen who have stepped up.

And the incredible scientists who have discovered a vaccine.

I know it hasn’t been easy.

I know for many of our key workers they will have to step up again, one more time, this Christmas.

As will our Armed Forces who have deployed here and across the overseas.

To all of you a heartfelt thank you.

Christmas is a time for us to be thankful for what we value most and to care for those who have lost so much.

Too many families have lost loved ones this year.

For many, that is going to mean an empty space around the Christmas table.

And I know how difficult this period will be without them.

To all of those families, to all of you in isolation, my thoughts are with you all.

This year has been like no other.

But there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The vaccine will be distributed.

The spread of the virus will slow.

Businesses will reopen.

And we will recapture the spirit that has got us through the pandemic and rebuild a better future for our country.

So, wherever you are and however you’re celebrating stay safe, have a very merry Christmas and I look forward to seeing you in the New Year.

24/12/2020
Norman Fowler – 2020 Comments on the Future of the House of Lords

Sections of an article by Norman Fowler, the Lord Chancellor, published in the Guardian on 23 December 2020.

Boris Johnson has now created 52 new peers this year – taking the total size of the Lords to more than 830 – despite a cross-party agreement three years ago that numbers should over time be reduced to 600.

I would suggest four immediate issues for review:

First there remains the whole question of the size of the Lords, which is almost 200 larger than the Commons and far in excess of what is needed to transact its business. Surely the torrent of new appointments has neither public nor political support.

Second, we should recognise that, as long as freedom to appoint lies in the hands of prime ministers – any prime minister – we need at the very least an effective checking system. I am not going to comment on individuals, but what I would say is that the present powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission are fundamentally deficient. The commission has a strong and independent membership. It is absurd that its powers are only advisory.

As we have just seen, its recommendations can be overridden by No 10. The result is that a prime minister has the power on his or her own to add peers to a house of parliament that can make and, within limits, unmake laws. Is this what the public expect in the third decade of the 21st century?

Third, we should recognise also that there is no limit on the maximum number of peers in the House. This sets us apart from all the senates in democratic countries that I have visited over the last four years as lord speaker. It takes away a fundamental check on power.

Fourth, when making appointments it has become obvious that governments wish to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Both of the initial announcements of new peerages in the last 12 months have been made when parliament has not been sitting. It simply adds to the impression that the choice of peers is the exclusive preserve of No 10 – and the less publicity the better. This may be fine for the government’s public relations team: whether it is fine for parliament is another matter.

23/12/2020
Boris Johnson – 2020 Response to New York Times Article on Government Negligence and Cronyism

A statement issued by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet Office, on 23 December 2020.

At the height of the crisis in April, health services around the world faced an unprecedented urgent situation where demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) and other medical equipment, including testing supplies and ventilators, far exceeded supply, and global production and supply chains were under severe pressure. The government pledged to do whatever it took to protect the people who protect us, deploying hundreds of officials to work night and day, at great speed, to source as much PPE as quickly as possible to protect the NHS and care sector and save lives. We also mobilised huge resources to increase testing capacity and deliver other important medical equipment.

On 17 December, the New York Times published an article, “Waste, Negligence and Cronyism: Inside Britain’s Pandemic Spending.” The article makes a number of incorrect claims, uses poor methodology and excludes important context about the challenges faced by the UK Government and other public authorities during the unprecedented global pandemic.

Claim: “The government handed out thousands of contracts to fight the virus, some of them in a secretive “V.I.P. lane.”

Response: At the peak of the pandemic, UK Government officials were inundated with approaches from companies and other commercial actors with offers to procure or provide PPE and other relevant equipment. To help establish a mechanism for handling the approaches, as well as increase the speed at which they could be dealt with, an inbox was created for referrals. This inbox was available across government and to parliamentarians from all parties. In total, the UK government received over 15,000 offers of support from businesses to help with PPE, and MPs were inundated with offers of help from their constituents. MPs rightly were keen to pass on offers.

The government remains hugely grateful for the outpouring of offers of help and the high priority mailbox allowed procurement officials to assess more quickly offers from more credible sources, such as large companies with established contacts and those more capable of supplying at speed.

The government also ensured that offers of support raised by Opposition MPs were dealt with expeditiously. As the National Audit Office report notes, all PPE offers, no matter from where they came, went through the same eight step official assurance process, including quality checks, price controls and other due diligence. This eight step process has been published in the NAO’s report.

Claim: The New York Times “analyzed a large segment of it (government spending), the roughly 1200 central government contracts that have been made public, together worth nearly $22 billion. Of that, about $11 billion went to companies either run by friends and associates of politicians in the Conservative Party, or with no prior experience or a history of controversy”.

Response: The New York Time’s definition of ‘politically connected’ is misleading. As the article sets out, they defined this as ‘companies with political connections were defined as those with current or former government officials and advisers on staff, as party donors or who have received a British honors system award, such as a knighthood or peerage’.

This definition fundamentally misunderstands the British state. government officials – or civil servants – are politically neutral and therefore it is simply wrong to infer that they have political connections. The New York Times also considers those who received a state honour as having a political connection. Again it is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of the honours system to assert that someone receiving an honour automatically has a ‘political connection’. In fact, the honours system operates independently of government, with the vast majority of honours recommended by independent honours committees.

Finally, this implies that any company with a ‘connection’ to the government got a contract as a result of that connection. The National Audit Office examined a series of contracts and “found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and … found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management”. This was not reflected by the New York Times.

Claim: “Smaller firms without political clout got nowhere”.

Response: This is again factually untrue. ‘Political clout’ played no part in the official procurement process. For example, all PPE procurement went through the same eight checks, including quality checks, price controls and other due diligence, and was assessed against the same standards.

It is untrue to suggest that smaller firms, SMEs, did not receive contracts.

Claim: “The government had license to act fast because it was a pandemic, but we didn’t give them permission to act fast and loose with public money”.

Response: This is not true. The eight step official process assessed and scruitinsed PPE offers. While prices were higher, due to a surge in global demand and constraints of supply, the government put in place stringent checks to ensure that we were paying in line with market rates. Officials with procurement expertise ran this process. Governments across the world and devolved administrations and local authorities in different parts of the UK faced similar challenges. Indeed, OECD analysis shows that direct awards were used by countries across the world in order to increase PPE supply, such as some EU countries, Japan and New Zealand.

Claim: “The procurement system was ‘cobbled together”.

Response: This is untrue. Our system was established and run by experienced procurement experts. The system enabled us to act quickly to ensure that we saved lives.

Claim: “The government cast aside the usual transparency rules and awarded contracts worth billions of dollars without competitive bidding”.

Response: This is untrue. Pre-existing regulations (the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) allow public authorities to award contracts without competitive tender in circumstances of extreme urgency. An unprecedented global pandemic, with global demand pressures on PPE, was clearly an emergency. It was right that the government acted quickly – and within the existing regulations – to increase PPE available to the NHS front line. Direct awards were made by public administrations across the UK and various local authorities. Similar approaches were adopted by many other countries, including Japan, Finland and New Zealand. It is absurd to imply that the government ought to have run a full public procurement competition for PPE contracts at the height of the pandemic. The minimum number of days a competitive award could take place in under the current rules is 25 days. This would have hugely slowed down the buying of vital PPE supplies.

Claim: “To date, just over half of all of the contracts awarded in the first seven months remain concealed from the public.” “The British central government published data on pandemic-related contracts worth $22 billion awarded from January through November. Many more contracts remain secret”.

Response: It is misleading to suggest that the contracts which are yet to be published through routine transparency are ‘secret’. The Government has already stated that we will publish all contract award notices as part our commitment to transparency. We regret that some contracts have not been uploaded in a timely fashion as a result of prioritising staff’s time on securing life saving PPE and other equipment for the NHS. All contracts will be published as soon as possible. All contract awards for PPE have now been published.

Claim: “Around $6 billion went to companies that had no prior experience in supplying medical personal protective equipment. Fashion designers, pest controllers and jewelers won lucrative contracts”.

Response: Finding new suppliers, who may not necessarily have direct prior experience of supplying PPE, was a deliberate policy – alongside exhausting existing supply routes. Clothing companies, for example, were an obvious route to new PPE supplies. As the article later acknowledges, many companies, such as the fashion brand Burberry, did create new production lines and successfully produce critical supplies. It is unclear if the New York Times thinks it was wrong for the government to contract with these companies which successfully produced PPE for the NHS frontline.

More importantly, analysis showed that the vast majority of the PPE procured by the government during the coronavirus crisis met the required clinical safety standards, which is especially impressive given the supply chain issues, the urgency of the situation, the speed at which staff had to work and the need to explore novel routes. We found that only 0.5% of products tested to date cannot be used. The point has been made above on why many companies repurposed their activities in order to supply PPE during increased global demand.

Claim: “There is ample evidence of cronyism, waste and poor due diligence”.

Response: The National Audit Office report last month recognised that the government ‘needed to procure with extreme urgency’ and ‘secured unprecedented volumes of essential supplies necessary to protect front-line workers’. As set out above, the government does recognise that at a time of unprecedented global demand, prices were inflated for typical levels, but does not accept that process was not followed. It is untrue to say there is ample evidence of waste. We found that only 0.5% of products tested to date cannot be used. We have outlined above the stringent due diligence which took place.

Claim: “The crisis gave way to a system that was neither fair nor equitable”.

Response: This is not the case. All offers of PPE, no matter where they came from, were assessed against the same criteria and went through the same eight step checks. This meant that potential suppliers were assessed against the same standards, such as whether their product met our high PPE standards and whether they could supply PPE at an adequate scale.

Claim: “Junior staffers reviewed thousands of proposals and passed on a chosen few to their bosses, who often had only a day to sign off on contracts.”

Response: This reflects the speed at which the PPE market was moving at the time, and is why it was not possible to run even accelerated public tendering processes, which take a minimum of 25 days. It was right that we put in place the processes needed quickly to take up offers of support. Contracts were only agreed once due diligence and price checks took place, through the process detailed above. We needed to act quickly to ensure that we ordered life saving PPE for the NHS front line.

Claim: “Still, conflict of interest questions remain” (around Lord Deighton).

Response: Lord Deighton had no role in approving PPE contracts and no role in the COVID19 response beyond PPE. We have robust rules and processes in place in order to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur. All conflicts of interest for Lords are declared on the House of Lords Register. Following Lord Deighton’s offer to support the government in any way he could, he was appointed an advisor on PPE to the SOS on 19 April. Lord Deighton’s role initially was to help set up U.K. manufacturing of PPE. Over the next few weeks this developed into a broader advisory role across the PPE programme.

23/12/2020
Matt Hancock – 2020 Comments on Increased Funding for Testing in Care Homes

The comments made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 23 December 2020.

We have worked throughout the pandemic to protect staff, and residents in care homes and today we are boosting rapid testing in care homes, with a further £149 million pounds to support that effort. All those who work in care homes across England will receive 2 rapid tests a week, in addition to their weekly PCR test.

23/12/2020
Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

The statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 23 December 2020.

Good afternoon and welcome to Downing Street for today’s coronavirus briefing.

I’m joined by Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, and Dr Susan Hopkins, the Chief Medical Advisor to Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace.

We all know that 2020 has been a hard year.

And it is ending in this festive period, which is going to be very different.

After all the efforts that we’ve gone through to control this virus, and in many parts of the country, this virus is under control.

Just as we’ve got a tiering system in place that was able to control this virus, we’ve discovered a new, more contagious virus, a variant which is spreading at a dangerous rate.

And I know that the vast majority of people watching today and across the country understand what we need to do together to get through this.

So today we’re announcing further action within the tiering system and also some further progress on vaccines and on testing.

And I just wanted to say this before I set out the details of what we’re going to have to put in place: I know this action has consequences.

And I know how difficult it is.

But I also know that it is right to take the action that is necessary to control this virus.

Across the country, cases have risen 57% in the last week

The average daily COVID hospital admissions are 1,909 a day – that’s the highest figure since mid-April.

There are 18,943 people in hospital right now, that’s almost as many as at the peak.

And yesterday, 691 deaths from coronavirus were reported. That’s 691 people who have died just before Christmas. And our hearts go out to their families and loved ones as with all those that have died from this horrible disease.

I know the pain this causes.

So against this backdrop of rising infections, rising hospitalisations and rising number of people dying from coronavirus, it is absolutely vital that we act.

We simply cannot have the kind of Christmas that we all yearn for.

Of course, it’s the social contact that makes Christmas so special. But it is that social contact that the virus thrives on, and that’s how the virus has spread from one person to another.

So it’s important that we all minimise our social contact as much as is possible this Christmas, and that will help protect ourselves, our loved ones and the whole country.

We’ve got to keep our resolve. We’ve got to keep going through this.

And there are 4 areas of our response that I want to update you on today very specifically.

Local action

The first are those tiering decisions that I’ve just mentioned.

We know that the 3-tiered system worked to control the old variant, and is working now in large parts of the country, especially in Northern England.

But, we also know that Tier 3 is not enough to control the new variant.

That is not a hypothesis, it is a fact, and we’ve seen it on the ground.

We have seen case rates rise in some of places close to where the current Tier 4 restrictions are, in places like East Anglia, where we’ve also detected a significant number of the new variant as we’ve seen case rates rise sharply.

It is therefore necessary to put more of the East and South East of England into Tier 4.

We are also taking action in parts of the South West, where there are some early signs of the new variant, and where cases are rising.

Even though case rates in some of these areas are not as high as in some areas badly affected, in London for instance and in Kent, the direction is clear, and in many cases is quite stark.

The doubling times are short.

And we have learnt that when it’s a matter of when, not if we take action.

It is better to act sooner.

So, from one minute past midnight on Boxing Day, Sussex, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, those parts of Essex not yet in Tier 4, Waverley in Surrey, and Hampshire, including Portsmouth and Southampton, but with the exception of the New Forest, will be escalated to Tier 4.

Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset, including the North Somerset Council area, Swindon, the Isle of Wight, New Forest and Northamptonshire, as well as Cheshire and Warrington, will be escalated to Tier 3.

And I’m afraid Cornwall and Herefordshire have seen sharply rising rates and need to be escalated to Tier 2.

This is not news that anybody wants to deliver.

And I am truly sorry for the disruption that it causes.

But I think people know how important it is that we take decisions like this to keep people safe and to protect the NHS.

South Africa

The second piece of new I want to tell you about is developments on another new strain of this virus.

Of course, the fight against this virus is a global effort.

And we are constantly vigilant and looking around the world.

As part of our surveillance, and thanks to the impressive genomic capability of the South Africans, we have detected 2 cases of another new variant of coronavirus here in the UK.

Both are contacts of cases who have travelled from South Africa over the past few weeks.

The Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer and others met their South African counterparts over the last day.

We are incredibly grateful to the South African Government for the rigour of their science, and the openness and the transparency with which they have rightly acted, as we did when we discovered the new variant here.

This new variant is highly concerning, because it is yet more transmissible and it appeared to have mutated further than the new variant that has been discovered here.

We have taken the following action.

First, we are quarantining cases, and close contacts of cases, found here in the UK.

Second, we are placing immediate restrictions on travel from South Africa.

Finally, and most importantly, anyone in the UK who has been in South Africa in the past fortnight, and anyone who has been in close contact with anyone who has been in South Africa in the last fortnight, must quarantine immediately.

By quarantine, I mean they must restrict all contact with any other person whatsoever.

We will be changing the law to give this legal effect imminently.

These measures are temporary, while we investigate this further new strain, which is currently being analysed at Porton Down.

And I want to thank everyone involved for the seriousness with which I know they will take these instructions.

Testing

I’d like to now move onto some more positive developments.

The third thing I wanted to talk about was an update on testing.

As you know, we continue rapidly to expand testing capacity here in the UK.

We are expanding community testing yet further in areas where the rate of infection is highest

So we can identify people, and especially to identify the around 1 in 3 people, who carry the virus without displaying any symptoms at all.

116 local areas have now signed up for this community testing, and we are in discussion with more.

These rapid turnaround tests are proving to be extremely effective at finding cases where we otherwise wouldn’t.

And I am today publishing an assessment of the Liverpool community testing project, which shows how effective this can be.

I would urge anyone who has the opportunity to take part to protect their local area.

And at the same time we are boosting rapid testing in care homes, with a further £149 million to support that effort.

So all those who work in care homes in England will receive 2 rapid tests a week, in addition to their weekly PCR test.

Vaccines

Finally, amid all this difficulty, the great hope for 2021 is of course the vaccine.

The vaccine is our route out of all this.

And, however tough this Christmas and this winter is going to be, we know that the transforming force of science is helping find a way through.

I am delighted to be able to announce that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, developed here in the UK, has submitted its full data package to the MHRA for approval.

This is the next step towards a decision on the deployment of the vaccine, which is already being manufactured including here in the UK.

We are, of course, continuing to deploy the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, which is being delivered now from over 500 sites all across the UK, and we are adding more all of the time and we are accelerating the rollout.

I am also delighted to be able to announce that we have begun vaccination in care homes.

We know that people who live in care homes are amongst those most vulnerable to this disease, and I’m delighted that we’re able to do this. It is another enormous logistical challenge, and I am very grateful to colleagues in the NHS and social care sector, who have worked so hard together to make this happen.

This afternoon, it gives me great joy to tell you that the Chelsea Pensioners will be vaccinated, along with care home residents right across the country.

I think we all need a bit of good news.

And the reality is this vaccine programme is the we are going to get this.

Because every time someone is vaccinated, our country becomes a little bit safer, they become a little bit safer and we get a little bit closer to the life that we all want to get back to.

Achievements this year

As I sincerely hope this is my last press conference before Christmas.

I want to take a moment firstly to thank you, and everyone watching, for the sacrifices you’ve made.

And I want to thank my whole team, who have done so much, including those here, including Susan and Jenny, but including the huge team in the NHS, in the Department and right across the board.

As a country, we have been faced with the most enormous challenges, and it has been very tough.

But I especially want to thank those who help this country to become the first in the world to roll out a clinically approved vaccine.

I want to thank all those that have helped us build a bigger capacity genomic testing than anywhere else in the world – and of course the biggest testing capacity in Europe.

I want to thank our scientist who discovered the first proven treatment for coronavirus.

And I want to thank everybody working in the NHS and in social care for the work that they’ve done this year, and also for the work that’s going to carry on this winter.

And especially to colleagues are going to work over Christmas, which of course is so important in the NHS and in social care.

Look, I know how hard 2020 has been for everybody.

And after delivering some really difficult news, if I may I want to end on a reflection about where we are as a country.

This Christmas, and the start of 2021, is going to be tough.

The new variant makes everything much harder, because it spreads so much faster.

But we mustn’t give up now. We know that we can control this virus, we know that we can get through this together.

We’re going to get through it by suppressing the virus, until a vaccine can make us safe, and that has been our strategy and that’s what we must do.

And I know that we can do this. We’ve seen so much sacrifice.

We’re not going to give up now, especially after so much sacrifice.

I know that some of these decisions are tough.

But I believe that everybody making the right decisions, and I believe that everybody will do what is needed to keep themselves and others safe, especially this Christmas.

And I know from the bottom of my heart that there are brighter skies ahead.

23/12/2020
Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on Government’s Press Conference on 23 December

The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 23 December 2020.

Families across the country will be understandably alarmed and anxious at the escalation in the prevalence of this horrific virus.

Ministers need to act quickly. The usual Boris Johnson dither has disastrous consequences. It’s fiercely urgent that ministers increase vaccination roll out to save lives and minimise harm.

23/12/2020
Gavin Williamson – 2020 Comments on Appointment on Simon Lebus

The comments made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, on 22 December 2020.

Simon’s knowledge and experience will be vital as we work to make sure young people taking exams and qualifications in 2021 have the best possible chance to succeed.

I’d like to thank Dame Glenys for her commitment and support over the last four months as acting Chief Regulator, in particular regarding the exceptional measures that have been put in place for exams next year. I am grateful to her for agreeing to continue to support work on exams from January, as Chair of the 2021 committee of Ofqual’s board.

22/12/2020
Boris Johnson – 2020 Letter to Lord Bew Overriding Decision on Peter Cruddas

The letter sent by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, to Lord Bew on 22 December 2020.

Text of letter (in .pdf format)

22/12/2020
Cledwyn Hughes – 1966 Statement on Aberfan

The statement made by Cledwyn Hughes, the then Secretary of State for Wales, in the House of Commons on 24 October 1966.

All Members will have already shared in the nation’s grief over the disaster that overtook the small community of Aberfan on Friday morning, when a coal tip avalanched into a farmhouse, 20 houses and two schools.

Despite the efforts of the rescuers, few lives could be saved. The bodies of 111 children and 32 adults have been recovered. It is difficult to give precise figures of the persons who are still missing, but about 49 are unaccounted for.

Alongside the rescue efforts, other work has been going on to stabilise the tip and to prevent further slippages. The Chairman of the National Coal Board, Lord Robens, who has been personally directing this work, has reported to me that the tip can now be regarded as generally stable. While there may be local adjustments of portions of the tip itself and of its widespread extensions lower down, these should not give cause for concern. In the unlikely event of a major movement, the alarm system that has been installed should give adequate warning.

As regards other tips of the National Coal Board that might constitute a hazard, the Board has intensified its inspection procedures and in certain cases has put special precautionary measures in hand. Local authorities have been asked to inspect pit heaps not owned or operated by the Coal Board, to identify which of these might constitute a hazard.

It is possible that the present legal responsibilities and powers of the appropriate authorities in relation to the safety of pit heaps need to be extended and this will be one of the important questions that will be considered by Lord Justice Edmund Davies.

I have discussed his inquiry with Lord Justice Edmund Davies today. He is travelling to South Wales this afternoon and will spend tomorrow at Aberfan. I shall be having a further meeting with him on Wednesday. As the Prime Minister has already made clear, he will have wide terms of reference to cover all aspects of the disaster, and he will be given all the powers that he considers necessary. After discussion with Lord Justice Edmund Davies it has been decided to ask Parliament for the inquiry to be conducted under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, and the necessary Resolutions will be moved later this week.

Those of us who have had to be at the scene of the disaster will never forget its horror and tragedy; nor shall we forget the selfless and unremitting efforts of the thousands who, since last Friday morning, have been engaged on the appallingly difficult tasks of rescue, recovery and reclamation.

The House will wish to express its own deep sympathy with the bereaved. The House will also wish to record its appreciation of the work of Merthyr County Borough Council, other local authorities and national and local organisations and services and the public.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the bereaved relatives and all my constituents will be most grateful to him for his assurances and, may I add, for the long days and nights which he personally has spent in the stricken village, and to the Prime Minister for his visit and for his great encouragement to those who are still fighting the battle in Aberfan?

May I express my own sympathy to the bereaved relatives and, on their behalf, great appreciation for the thousands of people who have volunteered their services and their resources to the people in Aberfan who need so much help?

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is so closely identified with the people he represents.

Mr. Gibson-Watt

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I record our deep sympathy with those who have suffered bereavement in this tragic disaster at Aberfan? We wish also to praise those many thousands of helpers who have worked and who are still working on the job of recovery with such gallantry. We support the Secretary of State for Wales in his appointment of Lord Justice Edmund Davies to head the public inquiry and, of course, we will support steps taken by the Government to prevent a repetition of such a tragedy in Wales.

There are certain disturbing features about this tragedy, but, in view of the inquiry, I will put only two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, to allay public anxiety, as he quite properly went out of his way to do in his statement, can he say what other tips owned by the National Coal Board at present give cause for concern? Secondly, will the court of inquiry be prepared to issue an interim report if it feels that to be necessary so that any lessons learned may bring immediate benefit?

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The inquiry has full power to do what he suggests in his second question and I will certainly discuss that with Lord Justice Edmund Davies on Wednesday.

The National Coal Board has informed me that there are three tips which it regards as presenting a hazard. These are in the Aberdare area. The first is the Albion Colliery, at Cilfynydd. The colliery is now closed and tipping has ceased. The tip is burning and a continual watch is being maintained. There is no cause for concern.

The second is the Mardy Colliery, where, in exceptionally wet weather, some movement of fine slurry has been noted, although there is no danger to property, the nearest of which is about three-quarters of a mile away and is not in line with any possible slip. Continual observation is being maintained here as well.

The third is Penrhiwceibr, where the old tips have consolidated and have a considerable cover of vegetation and where work has now ceased. Present rubbish disposal is on the other side of the mountain and there are no signs of any danger, although a continual watch is being maintained.

Mr. James Griffiths

May I, on behalf of all of us, express our deep regret at this awful tragedy and our sympathy with the bereaved and our considerable thanks to the very courageous people who have worked so well? We are very proud of the way in which, once more, our people have shown their traditional courage in times of distress.

I wholeheartedly welcome the appointment of Lord Justice Edmund Davies as chairman of the inquiry. He carries with him the confidence of all of us who know him and who know that he will do a thorough job. Will my right hon. Friend provide for him a complete record of all the coal and slag tips in South Wales? Secondly, as the Coal Board is responsible for some but not all of them, can my right hon. Friend say what is the number of tips in Wales and who is responsible for them and whether information of that kind will be put before the inquiry?

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As he is aware, under the 1921 Act the inquiry will have full power to summon witnesses and call for papers. It is estimated that there are some 500 coal tips in South Wales. Ownership is divided among the Coal Board for all tips on its property, and local authorities and private landowners on whose land disused tips stand. Only 80 tips are at present in use, but the Coal Board has a regular inspection procedure for all tips on its land, whether these tips are in use or not.

However, in the light of events at Aberfan, the Board has intensified its inspection procedures. The Board states that there is no imminent danger from any of its tips, but in the three cases I have mentioned, because of the experience at Aberfan, special measures are being put in hand forthwith. This involves continual inspection, and not inspection once a day, which is a statutory requirement.

Mr. Finch

Can my right hon. Friend say what warning system is involved in those pits in the South Wales coalfield where the tips are regarded as a hazard?

Mr. Hughes

A 24-hour watch is being kept at Aberfan. There are klaxon hooters and the men on watch have walkie-talkie sets, keeping them in constant communication with the base.

Mr. Hooson

On behalf of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends I would like to be associated with the expressions of sympathy which have followed this appalling tragedy. It is an appalling tragedy for the Welsh nation apart from anything else.

May I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales on his appointment of Lord Justice Edmund Davies to conduct the inquiry. No one is better qualified to carry it out.

I would also like to associate myself with the thanks and appreciation expressed in the House to all of those who have given such unstinting help in this terrible situation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that it would be wiser, since this inquiry has now been ordered, if no one made statements as to the cause of this tragedy? It should be a matter for the tribunal to investigate rather than for anyone, however eminent, to make statements. Would he also reassure the House that the inquiry will not confine itself to the dangers from existing slag heaps in South Wales? From my own knowledge I can tell of one slag heap in North Wales, not owned by the National Coal Board, which gave some trouble some years ago. I am sure that the House is very pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that the legal position with regard to responsibility for these tips is being investigated by the Lord Justice Edmund Davies committee.

Mr. Hughes

The possible causes of the accident are a matter for the inquiry, and it is inappropriate and improper for me or anyone else to comment upon them.

We are taking similar action in relation to tips in North Wales.

Mr. Berry

As a member of a Merthyr family and as one who had the privilege of holding an ancient office in the county only a short time ago, may I add my sympathies to those already expressed. May I also express my admiration for the people of Merthyr for the way in which they have struggled through these past few days, so typical of them in times of adversity.

Finally, may I express the hope that the inquiry, under Lord Justice Edmund Davies, than whom there could be no more suitable chairman, may find a solution which will ensure that never again will such a disaster occur, either in Wales or any other part of the country.

Mr. Arthur Pearson

While associating myself with the entirely appropriate condolences and tributes, and although welcoming what the Secretary of State has said about intensified inspections, may I ask him whether the inspections will be regular and in association with the engineering departments of local authorities who are closest to the people in these areas? Is he aware of the growing anxieties of people living near to these tips, and of the danger in mentioning the three dangerous tips, since this will cause greater anxiety?

Mr. Hughes

As I have informed the House, the Coal Board is inspecting and maintaining a continual watch on the tips which it regards as presenting a hazard. Local authorities are very much aware of the problem and I have asked them to look carefully at all tips which do not belong to the Coal Board and which lie in their areas. I can tell the House that local authorities who may feel that they do not have the expert advice to look carefully at a tip and assess whether it is a hazard will be able, on request to the Coal Board, to obtain the advice of the Board’s engineers. I am grateful to the Board for making this offer.

Mr. Probert

While welcoming what my hon. Friend has said, may I ask him if, when asking local authorities to report on this matter, he will impress upon them the urgency of such reports, in view of the prevailing anxiety? In addition, will he recommend that local authorities should obtain, not only the advice of the Coal Board’s experts, but of outside experts, for obvious reasons?

Mr. Hughes

Certainly. I have asked for reports from the Coal Board and I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. We shall be working in close collaboration to obtain up-to-date and urgent reports of all the spoil heaps in South Wales, in order to allay the anxieties which I know my hon. Friend and his constituents feel.

Dr. David Kerr

I am perhaps not the most appropriate person to say this, but on behalf of a constituency which does not live under the constant threats, and the ugliness of a bygone age, and on behalf of most of us in this House, may I say that this tragedy has reminded people a long way from Wales that we are still one nation.

May I also offer the Secretary of State for Wales an assurance that, whatever the Government decide to do, first, to ensure that this sort of tragedy never recurs and, secondly, to see that the children of Aberfan have a fitting memorial in the future, he will have the fullest support from everyone all over the country.

22/12/2020
Angela Rayner – 2020 Comments on Peter Cruddas Peerage

The comments made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 22 December 2020.

After months of revelations about the cronyism at the heart of this government, it’s somehow appropriate the Prime Minister has chosen to end the year with a peerage to Peter Cruddas, the man who once corruptly offered access to government in exchange for cash.

Whether it’s the Dominic Cummings saga, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer cash on contracts that don’t deliver or giving peerages to disgraced donors, it’s never been more clear: there is one rule for the Conservatives and their chums, another for the rest of the country.

22/12/2020