UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Roy Hughes – 1974 Speech on the Spencer Steelworks

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roy Hughes, the then Labour MP for Newport, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I would say at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a delight it is to me to see you in your elevated position, and as a fellow Welsh Member I ask you to accept my sincere congratulations.

    I wrote to Mr. Speaker seeking this debate the day after I was elected back to the House, and following promises that I made to people in my constituency during the election campaign. The Spencer works employ nearly 9,000 people, and many hundreds more are employed by ancillary concerns attached to them. The works are literally the cornerstone of the economy of Newport.

    Recent happenings at these works have been the subject of considerable public concern. They have been highly detrimental to the town of Newport in its quest for new industry. Secondly, they have been politically damaging to the Labour Party which profoundly believes in public ownership of the steel industry.

    The immediate sequence of events was a small dispute, following which the British Steel Corporation decided to close the works and to lay off many thousands of workpeople. Following that, the payment of unemployment and other benefits to those workpeople was stopped. In addition, an offensive letter was sent to each workman at the plant, and this all at the height of the General Election campaign. The letter caused tremendous bitterness in the area. Housewives as well as workpeople at the works were highly indignant, and I can truthfully say that at times there was almost a riotous situation there.

    There are a number of questions which I want to pose to the Minister. Who gave instructions to Mr. Stanley Brooks, the Llanwern group director, to close the works? Was the corporation responding to the dictates of the Government of the ​ day in their law and order campaign? In other words, was it a politically motivated decision? Those are fundamental questions which I feel need answering.

    These works have a tremendous potential, but their history to date has been nothing short of a disaster. They were opened in 1962 by Her Majesty the Queen, following a decision in 1958 by the then Macmillan Government. There was a controversy over the site. Consequently, half of the original plant came to Newport and half went to Scotland. The Newport side of the venture nevertheless cost about £200 million, but due to the split there was a production bottleneck right from the start. There was not enough steelmaking capacity to keep the massive and extremely expensive rolling mills working to capacity. What is more, the plant was opened at a time when the product produced was plentiful. Thus, in the early ‘sixties it was selling its product at below market price. The works certainly got off to a bad start.

    My former colleague, Mr. Donald Anderson, who was then Member for Monmouth, and I fought hard to remedy matters. Eventually, in January 1970, the last Labour Government authorised what became known as Scheme C to provide, among other things, a third blast furnace and to bring the steel-making capacity into line with the rolling mills.

    After the 1970 General Election, however, the new Conservative Government held up the scheme, although later they gave the go-ahead again. Such indecision, nevertheless, was hardly likely to inspire confidence among the workpeople.

    What is more, over the years the cost of the scheme has escalated from the original £48 million to £90 million. Another damaging factor was three years ago at the works, when an investigation was held by the fraud squad into a possible £300,000 fraud involving the hire of plant and equipment. Although the Director of Public Prosecutions eventually decided to take no action in the matter, this, again, tended to undermine confidence.

    These factors have been highly detrimental to the works, but they had nothing to do with the actions of the work force. Nevertheless, I agree that many of the current difficulties are about industrial relations—in other words, about ​ people. When the works started, people flocked there from West Wales, from many of the villages and towns of the hinterland. New communities sprang up, and ever since there has been a certain lack of social cohesion. Likewise, there has been the lack of security at the works. This is partly due to the production bottlenecks to which I have referred.

    I have received numerous deputations over the years from the trade unions calling for a fully integrated plant. There is the question of iron ore supplies. The works are at present supplied by small ships of less than 30,000 tons coming into Newport docks but there was an Uskmouth scheme passed by the House in 1967 which would have provided for much larger vessels. After public ownership, this scheme was, unfortunately, pigeon-holed. Now we have the ridiculous decision by the corporation to supply iron ore for the works through Port Talbot and bring it 50 miles over land. A new harbour would cost a fraction of the cost of new works, and the Spencer Works would derive tremendous benefit from a harbour at Uskmouth. Instead, the works are being treated merely as a subsidiary of Port Talbot, and this, again, is highly detrimental to morale.

    Why cannot the corporation management see this? It has much to answer for and it is no good its trying to put all the fault on the workpeople, as it is doing through its public relations department. There was a major dispute there in early 1973 over the sacking of a boilermaker. A strike by 280 men ensued which lasted over seven weeks. Eventually, over 5,000 men were laid off and the dispute was estimated to cost £10 million. It was a completely unnecessary dispute.

    I do not want to go into the pros and cons of the dispute, but an independent tribunal reinstated the man. I said at the time—and I was fully supported by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary—that this man should have been suspended with pay and then a tribunal could have been established to go into the whole matter. But what the BSC wanted was that the man should be laid off without pay and that then the tribunal should sit.

    As I said at that time, it is like the judge in the Western film who said, “You are guilty, but you will have a fair trial”.

    This behaviour is against all the concepts of British justice. Again, at the end of last year I was approached by one of the trade unionists at the plant who made allegations of telephone tapping. I took up the matter in a reasonable manner with the British Steel Corporation management.

    After eight weeks I had received no satisfactory reply and I therefore indicated that I intended to raise the matter in the House. Subsequently, the British Steel Corporation issued a statement in The Times to the effect that it had reviewed its procedures for checking against the misuse of company telephones and that the previous practice at some works of monitoring certain calls had been discontinued.

    Again, I pose the question: are actions of this kind likely to promote confidence and good will among workpeople? Another factor from which the works is suffering is in their choice of management personnel. There has been an invasion from the North of England from people previously associated with the United Steels Company. They have worsened the situation at the works. They do not understand the psychology of the workers. The Welsh temperament is different from theirs. There has been a long and great history of steel making in South Wales, but there is no vision among the new management staff. I believe that the corporation should bring to the works Mr. John Powell, the formerly highly successful manager at Ebbw Vale, now at Shotton. He has the verve and flair to make a success of this potentially great works.

    I turn to the present scandal of the non-payment of benefits to the people who were laid off as a result of the recent dispute. I have been swamped with requests from workers about the injustice of this situation. My telephone at home has hardly stopped ringing. The dispute originally affected only a handful of people. Why should thousands of people be denied benefits as a result?

    I call upon the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to contact the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social ​ Services to see that these benefits are paid without further delay. There is a feeling of righteous indignation in our area at the present time about the situation at these works. People are simply demanding that the situation be looked into.

    Tonight I wish officially to report this request. The inquiry must be national in character. Perhaps the steel committee of the TUC would be the appropriate body for it, together with representatives of top-level management of the British Steel Corporation and also of the Department of Employment.

    There was a series of industrial disputes some years ago at the Port Talbot works, but eventually, after the major inquiry there, the air was cleared and it heralded a new era of industrial relations at the plant. Something similar is called for at the Spencer works. To my mind, it is not only management-worker relationships that should be discussed but also the future development of the works, to build it into a fully integrated plant, as I mentioned earlier. These are the moves that need to be urgently made to restore morale at these works. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some clear assurances tonight about these matters and authorise the establishment of an inquiry so that the position can be clarified for the people in my constituency.

  • Gordon Wilson – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Gordon Wilson, the then SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I am honoured to be here today to represent the constituency of Dundee, East. Dundee is Scotland’s third city. It is probably well known as such to all hon. Members, although there has been a distressing tendency on the part of the Scottish Office and other Departments in recent years to omit Dundee from some of the development maps. I hope that that will not occur in the future. Dundee was known traditionally for jute, jam and journalism. Today, it has a broad section of modern industry covering business machines, watches, printing, and tyres and is involved in the beginnings of oil development, in the Forties field and elsewhere.

    I had intended to raise a matter of concern to my constituency arising from an industrial dispute affecting the Timex works, which might have led to the loss of 6,000 jobs. A tense situation had arisen. I am glad to say, however, that there are signs of conciliation abroad in the dispute, and I hope that the matter will right itself naturally. I was encouraged to learn from the Gracious Speech of the Government’s intentions to facilitate conciliation industrially. I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment will bear in mind the situation in Dundee.

    As I remarked, Dundee has a sphere of the North Sea oil boom, but its participation so far has been small. Approximately 250 jobs have arisen from oil development. That is a small number out of those which have come from oil development around our coasts, and I want to dwell on that issue, albeit briefly, as it is a vast subject.

    In Scotland, we are much concerned with what has been happening in connection with the oilfields, perhaps more so than elsewhere in the United Kingdom because that development is taking place on our doorstep, and initially we recognised the importance of oil to a degree that several years ago the Department of Trade and Industry did not.

    Second, we are aware that in certain areas of Scotland there are bad effects from over-development. We are becoming aware of the need for conservation, to ensure that the oil industry is controlled so that we do not go from a boom to a bust situation. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) when he said that natural gas had not in itself led to any permanent improvement in the industrial situation in his area. It is manifest—there are examples of this elsewhere—that the mere discovery of oil in itself can leave an area exploited and without potential once the first flush of ​ development has taken place. We must all look out for that danger.

    In Scotland, and certainly in the Scottish National Party, we say that one must pay prime attention to the governmental revenues, which by 1980 are likely to be vast, to ensure that the returns from these capital resources—for oil is a capital resource—should be ploughed back into the industrial fabric of Scotland. We want to make sure that the industries we have are not those of the 19th century, or indeed, of the 20th century, but those that will expand in the 21st century.

    I have no hesitation in raising the question of oil. The House will hear a great deal about it from the Scottish National Party, because what is happening now is one of the most important events to hit Scotland over the last 200–300 years. If I required any further excuse to raise it, I could mention that I have recently been appointed my party’s parliamentary spokesman on this topic.

    What has worried me over the last few years is the state of unreadiness with which the United Kingdom has approached the development of the oilfields. It may be known to hon. Members that in 1965 the Norwegian Government began to prepare themselves for the onset of developments in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. They have taken in hand the development of Norwegian oil in ways which will be for the betterment of the Norwegian people.

    We in Scotland have found ourselves defenceless against the commercial and political interests. I need mention only that it is United Kingdom policy to speed up the extraction of oil in order to help the balance of payments, whereas Scotland as an oil-exporting country, just as Norway, would be more inclined to go for conservation so that the benefits were spread over a period not just of 25 years but of 100 years and subsequent generations were not cheated out of their birthright.

    If I have to say why Scotland needs primary benefit from development, I point to our lower wages and poorer housing. The opportunities in Scotland are poorer for children. One child in 10 in Scotland, according to a recent report, is bound to fail because of poor social and economic conditions. I believe the figure for the ​ south-east of England is one in 45. Unemployment too, has often been mentioned by Scots in this House.

    I shall briefly mention ways in which the Government could attend to Scottish interests. The votes in Scotland show that people in our country are very much concerned with what has been happening in relation to oil and they will be looking critically at the Government’s efforts to see how they will be affected.

    I suggest, first, to the Government that Scotland should expect to obtain the benefit of orders for equipment, services and use of labour in Scotland. They should be of Scottish origin except when Scotland cannot provide the goods or services concerned or where their provision from Scottish sources would not be reasonably competitive. This is something which the Norwegians have done, and I hope that the Government will follow their example. One may say that this is protectionism. But the United States requires that the supply vessels that operate off her shores should be manned by Americans and should also fly the American flag, whereas in the North Sea flags of convenience from Panama and elsewhere abound.

    Secondly, I hope that the Government will try to entice into Scotland specialist manufacturing processes connected with offshore oil, because the offshore drilling industry is in its infancy and if we enter the industry now there will be tremendous export markets available. This will require Government inducements and Government pressure. The Government may well be helped by the fact that the Scottish votes in the General Election have shown that people are sensitive to the possibility of exploitation and the oil interests may, therefore, wish to take out an insurance policy and try to give greater benefits to those who are likely to be affected.

    The third suggestion relates to the transfer of the petroleum department of the Department of Energy. There may be arguments for the transfer of the Department of Energy to Scotland, but the petroleum section should come immediately. The Hardman Report suggested that there should be a dispersal of Civil Service jobs from the centre. This may cause difficulties with existing posts. ​ But where a new Department is created there is a cast-iron case for dispersal of those jobs before they begin. I suggest that Scotland, which is now a centre of the offshore oil industry not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere, should be considered as the site for that office.

    The fourth recommendation is partly related to the Department of Energy. I could never understand, and many industrialists and members of trade unions in Scotland share my view, why the previous administration set up the Offshore Supplies Office in London, with a but-and-been office established in Glasgow set up several months later.

    The opportunities which will stem from the oil industry will arise in Scotland, and it makes sound sense that the relevant Government Departments should be located where the action is. I therefore ask the Government to consider transferring the Offshore Supplies Office to Scotland. They are not committed by the decision of the previous Government.

    I ask that the Government consider these suggestions I have raised in connection with the oil industry. In the Scottish National Party we have friendly feelings towards the people of England, and we want to make sure that, while we insist upon complete control of the oil industry, we take care of our friends in future years, but it must be borne in mind that the industrial pendulum—the power of the economy—has now swung irreversibly in the direction of Scotland through the discovery of oil. This should be some incentive to the Government to ensure that Scottish interests are not forgotten or ignored, as has happened so often before.

  • Hal Miller – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Hal Miller, the then Conservative MP for Bromsgrove and Redditch, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and so to make my maiden speech. It will concern the interests of my constituency of Bromsgrove and Redditch, which I am proud to be able to serve. The constituency has been very fortunate in its Members to date—Sir Michael Higgs and James Dance from the Conservative Party and, more recently, Terry Davis from the Labour Party. They established and developed a tradition of service which it will be my first concern to uphold.

    In my home we have a Lord Chancellor’s purse and a Black Rod, bequeathed me by my forebears, so I am conscious of the traditions of Parliament and one may imagine my pleasure at being here and my determination to uphold that parliamentary tradition, which is the only guarantee of the liberty so dear to the citizens of this country.

    My constituency is dependent on industry, largely the same industry, and dependent on it to the same extent, as that of my neighbour the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), who so ably moved the Loyal Address yesterday. Both his constituency and mine suffered from the previous Labour Government’s commitment to regional ​ development when they were in office in the matter of industrial development certificates and other incentives which resulted so frequently in the relocation of existing industry rather than the development of additional capacity. With a new town we are, of course, more than ordinarily exposed to the effects of Government policy in this respect, and I should welcome clarification of the Government’s intentions.

    Physical controls, although potentially serious, are only of equal importance to the financial régime, the proposals for which we have to await in the Budget, but I urge the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing their detailed proposals, to bear in mind the length of time between making an investment decision and bringing that investment into production.

    Nothing is more harmful to investment than uncertainty and constant changes in the ground rules. The one inhibits and the other vitiates investment. Confidence, about which the Secretary of State spoke this afternoon, can be based only on certainty of the Government’s intentions and on knowledge that the assumptions will hold good long enough to bring the investment into production.

    The industry in my constituency is, in the main, connected with the motor industry. It is central to the economy of the country, and this fact has made it a prey to Governments of both parties intent on managing the economy, often with disastrous results in terms of the employment and the wage packets of my constituents when the brakes are applied with too heavy a foot.

    It is a matter for regret that the Gracious Speech makes no reference to motorways. I had hoped for a commitment to re-examine the programme last put to the House in a Green Paper as long ago as 1969. The developments which have taken place since then have made such a re-examination urgent both as to the routes and as to the national priorities, the engineering standards adopted and the procedures for publishing specific proposals for public inquiries and for compensation.

    I have had occasion to write direct to the Secretary of State on the more detailed proposals—and here I pay tribute to the unflagging efforts of Terry Davis in this respect. But there are matters of general import that I wish to raise now.

    The first concerns the procedure which allows the publication of details of short stretches of motorway at one time, because once one section has been agreed after an inquiry it inevitably prejudices the remainder, although without a hearing. So it is that the M42 must prejudice the western orbital route in the vicinity of Hagley, although no detailed proposals have yet been published to which residents affected can yet object.

    The second concerns the need for some contribution towards the expenses of objectors at a public inquiry in retaining the experts and the advocates necessary to plead their cause and rebut the expertise of the Department. If an inquiry is necessary in the public interest, it would seem equitable that the public purse should bear the expenses of both parties once it is determined an inquiry is necessary. These costs have been aggravated by the incidence of value added tax.

    The M42 is planned to run through an area of green belt. I look in vain in the Gracious Speech for an indication of the Government’s intentions towards green belt land. We in Bromsgrove and Redditch do not wish to be engulfed in the West Midlands conurbation, and we look to the Secretary of State for speedy confirmation of interim green belt in north Worcestershire. Our fears in this regard have been sharpened by the recently announced decision of his predecessor regarding permission to build in the so-called “green wedges”.

    If there is a theme which links these remarks, it is that the people want to know, need to know and have a right to know what is happening.

  • John Tomlinson – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Tomlinson, the then Labour MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will excuse me if I do not follow him, but I am privileged to have the opportunity to make my first ​ speech in the House and wish to follow tradition by referring to my constituency.

    It is not merely the largest in the country; it is also at the centre of England. Many people in my constituency are too modest to say what they already know; namely, that the rest of England revolves around them. Meriden has been well served by its Members of Parliament. The late Chris Rowland served the House and the constituency well and is still affectionately remembered in the constituency by all who knew him for the work he did. My immediate predecessor, Mr. Keith Speed, was also renowned for his diligence in dealing with constituency matters, and this held him in high esteem throughout the constituency.

    My constituency has many facets to commend it. There is, for example, the new and extensive development outside Birmingham at Chelmsley Wood and Kingshurst, which, while magnificent, would be much enhanced if we were to get a swimming pool for which we have been fighting for many years. Many electors in my constituency work in the great conurbations surrounding Birmingham to the west and Coventry to the east. Between these two extremes we have a constituency which is tremendously diverse. It contains three coal mines—Baddesley, Daw Mill and Birch Coppice.

    Miners, and the rest of the community in my constituency, are pleased to note the speed with which the Government have managed to settle the mining dispute, which many of my constituents felt should never have taken place. My constituents are not only pleased that the dispute has been ended so speedily; they they are also pleased that, following the speedy cessation of the dispute, the rest of the country has managed to revert to normal working. My constituency is grateful for Government action which has so far been taken in this respect.

    In the centre of the constituency is Meriden village, where some of the world’s finest motor cycles are manufactured at the Triumph motor cycle works. I am pleased that we now have a Minister who is prepared to do something about the serious situation at the Triumph works—namely, the arbitrary attempt to close the factory. This has been resisted by employees who are in the process of forming a workers’ co-operative, which, it is hoped, will be established. I welcome the discussions on the co-operative development agency, and I look forward to sympathetic understanding from the Government regarding the problems of the workers at the motor cycle works. It would be a tragedy of enormous magnitude—not only in employment terms but also in terms of national resources which would be lost—if the works closed.

    Closure would be particularly tragic when it is borne in mind that most of the production at the works is for export. I look forward to Government support in the months ahead in ensuring that this great venture in industrial participation gets off the ground.

    My constituency is also concerned about the balance of payments problem. A number of hon. Members have spoken of the need to improve industrial productivity. I agree with this and with some of the measures which have been suggested to stimulate industrial productivity. I welcome the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act and the measures which will replace it and which will stimulate an atmosphere which will be more conducive to better industrial relations.

    The need to expand industrial productivity has been emphasised, but many people in my constituency are also concerned that drastic measures should be taken to promote import-saving industries. In my constituency many people are dependent on agriculture. Stimulation of an import-saving industry such as agriculture is equally as important as stimulation of industries which will lead to expansion of exports. Agriculture is a vital industry to my constituency, and the problems of agriculture, particularly the present plight of pig producers, have already been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by one of my constituents, Sir Henry Plumb, president of the National Farmers Union. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will find time to look at the problems of the industry.

    My constituents join with me in welcoming the Gracious Speech and the fact that it deals with the real problems which we have to face. Nearly half the people in my constituency live in rented accommodation. Thus, there has been great delight in Meriden over the speedy way the Government have tackled the Housing ​ Finance Act, which has placed unnecessary burdens on many people and led to unnecessary inflationary pressures. My constituents welcome the repeal of the Housing Finance Act, and they are pleased with the Government’s speedy action to freeze rents for the remainder of this year.

    Proposals in the Gracious Speech for improving pensions are welcome, as are many other measures.

    The Gracious Speech contains proposals which will deal with the interests of the whole community and considerably benefit the people I represent. On their behalf I welcome these proposals.

    I thank the House for its indulgence and for the way it has received me. I hope I shall have an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker’s eye on future occasions so as to address the House on, perhaps, more controversial issues of concern to my constituents.

  • Jeff Rooker – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Jeff Rooker, the then Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I hope that the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) will forgive me if I do not refer to his speech. I propose to follow the custom of new Members by referring to my constituency. I represent Perry Barr, which ​ is in Birmingham. It is the northern wedge of Birmingham, and it is the place where I was born and raised and went to school. I am doubly proud to have been elected to serve the electors of that constituency.

    There is very little industry in the constituency, and that is strange for such a large industrial city. Basically, it consists of housing, schools and a few shops. Except for half a dozen, most of the houses are post-1930. I suppose for some hon. Members that would be considered modern, notwithstanding that 50 per cent. of council houses still have outside sanitation—a state of affairs to be deplored in the age of Centre Point. I have promised my electors—and I intend to keep the promise, come what may—that I will not support public spending on grandiose schemes whilst outside sanitation exists.

    Also in the constituency—and this may surprise hon. Members—there is the Convent of the Little Sisters of the Assumption, which is 400 years old. They do invaluable social work amongst the underprivileged families in the area.

    There is also—not on the same site, I should add—a seminary for training Roman Catholic priests which is about 500 years old. These are located within the area of the Perry Barr constituency.

    Most of my constituents work in the thousand-and-one trades for which Birmingham is noted, but the majority are probably involved in the motor industry. I shall return to this matter later in the remarks I wish to make concerning the Gracious Speech.

    The Member I have replaced, Mr. Kinsey, worked hard on behalf of his constituents in Perry Barr and helped them to solve the problems that they encountered in the area. The fact that as a Member of this House he consistently voted against their best interests does not detract from the good work he did within the local community.

    Hon. Members may remember that just prior to the General Election Mr. Kinsey achieved some notice, along with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), concerning his remarks about the two-in-a-bath saga.

    Today we might refer to that as “unisex streaking”. I wondered at that time whether I. as a candidate of two and a half years’ standing, should comment on that matter. However, I decided that ​ what happens between a husband and wife in their own home ought not to be commented upon by any official or public person. Frankly, I thought it to be impertinent, and I hope that I will not fall into the trap into which the former Member for Perry Barr fell at that time.
    Labour candidates fought the election largely on the issues of rising prices and the level of inflation. It is remarkable that on the official notice of poll Mr. Kinsey described himself as a retail trader. I should have thought that he would run for cover from that title, but I nevertheless wish him well in returning to his former occupation of selling flowers to the electors and residents of a Birmingham suburb.

    The Gracious Speech refers to proposals on health and safety at work. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that many of the Government’s proposals had already been before the House and were included in the Queen’s Speech last November. I hope that is not so, because I do not believe we should support what the Conservative Government had in mind. The Conservative legislation was based almost completely on the report of the Robens Committee, published in July 1972. The main conclusion of that committee was that most industrial accidents at work are caused by the apathy of the workers. That is something else to blame on them. The accidents are their fault.

    It was also said that the prime responsibility for doing something about the problem lay with those who created the risks and worked with them. Yet we lived until 28th February in an employer-dominated society in which those who worked with the risks did not have the capacity to do anything about them. The committee said that there was also too much law on industrial safety at work and that it needed reducing. That of course is at variance with the theme of the legislation on industrial relations and wage restraint introduced by the Conservatives. Nevertheless, I admit that the Labour Government do not have clean hands over wage restraint legislation.

    The most frightening remark of that committee, which was taken to heart by the previous Government, was that it did not look upon the factory inspectorate ​ as a law enforcement agency. At the time I considered that to be a treasonable remark. I hope that my remarks will be seen to have an element of constructive criticism or comment in them about what I want our Bill to contain.

    We want action to ensure that there will not be 500 deaths a year from accidents in industry. Ten people will be killed this week at work, yet, according to the Robens Report, their deaths must be attributed to the apathy of the workers. We want action to reduce the 30 million to 40 million working days lost every year through accidents. I spent 15 years in industry as a time-serving toolmaker’s apprentice and I also served time on the other side of industry, some of it as a safety officer. I know from experience that attempts are made to circumvent the regulations and not to report accidents which take place.

    The only way to achieve progress in this respect is for those who work with the risks to have the statutory right to decide whether they will continue to work with them, and that means the safety officer should not be paid by the management but should be a worker who has the statutory right to investigate dangerous processes. When the question of compensation arises it means that we have failed because the accident will have happened and a man may have lost a life or part of a limb. Nevertheless, compensation is important. Our Bill must change the practice whereby serious breaches of the Factories Acts merely end up in a magistrates’ court with a £50 fine even when someone loses a hand or a foot. That sort of thing happens throughout industry, and it certainly happens in Perry Bar even though the constituency has little industry there. Such cases may be followed by about four or five years’ delay before compensation is paid through the courts when the plaintiff sues for negligence. The compensation is paid long after the time when it was badly needed.

    The Bill must ensure that the problems that people from my constituency came across, one of whom died as a result of an accident, are dealt with. There was a struggle for years to establish that there had been an accident even though it was not recorded. The affair was covered up at the time, but an industrial accident ​ happened. I want the Bill to solve problems, such as the one involving Mr. Arthur Faulks, who now has only one lung because of the repeated occasions he was told to work in conditions where asbestos dust was prevalent.

    I am opposed to the present rules governing industrial safety and welfare. New legislation is required, and I hope that we shall be able to give those who do the work the power over the process. Legislation planned by the previous Government did not provide for that, but I am hopeful that legislation proposed by the present Government will. If it does not, I shall not remain silent, neither will other hon. Members on the Government benches.

    I thank the House for the time it has given to me and for the silence with which it has listened to me. I realise that I may not have made a conventional maiden speech. I did not attempt to do so, for there is an element of controversy in most matters and I did not wish to waste the opportunity to address the House on matters of vital importance to the area I represent.

  • John Garrett – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Garrett, the then Labour MP for Norwich South, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    The constituency I have the honour to represent as a new Member covers the southern part of the city of Norwich, one of the country’s great regional capitals. I pay tribute at the outset to my predecessor, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, for the conscientious way in which he represented the interests of the people of Norwich, South.

    Norwich may be known to hon. Members as a city of priceless architecture, a heritage which in no small measure is due to the far-sighted policies of its city government, which has placed great emphasis upon the conservation of the fabric of the past while conscientiously planing the development of modern road networks for movement in the city. This same city government has a record second to none for the construction of public housing and for the development of other municipal services. Norwich is a thriving industrial centre with a wide range of ​ industrial and commercial activity. It, and its surrounding hinterland, does, however, suffer from markedly low wage rates, which, on average, are well below the wages in manufacturing industry in the rest of the country. This is due to the relative isolation of the city. Unkind people have unjustly suggested that the city is cut off from the rest of the country by British Rail. But the reason lies also in the structure of industry in the city and in historical factors.

    This problem leads me to comment upon an issue of public policy; namely, that the criteria by which regions qualify for Government assistance are too heavily weighted towards unemployment as a measure of need and too little towards low wages and an inadequate infrastructure of public transport and roads. I hope that the Government in formulating regional policy and criteria for assistance to regions, will in future broaden the definition of need to allow for these factors.

    I am pleased to see from the Gracious Speech that oil and gas from the Continental Shelf will be exploited in ways which confer the maximum benefit upon the community, particularly in regions in need of development.

    Yesterday some hon. Members opposite were frequently moved to exclaim about Scotland’s oil. I was tempted to join them with observations on Norfolk’s gas. The situation is that the discovery of natural gas off East Anglia has not led to industrial development based on that gas in Norfolk. That important industrial raw material has been piped through one of the lowest wage areas of the country to the Midlands and the South-East, areas which already have more than their fair share of industrial riches. I hope that the Gracious Speech foreshadows a policy which enables Norfolk to claim a share of high-wage, high-technology, energy-based industries.

    I was pleased to see that the Government will actively consider

    “measures to encourage the development and re-equipment of industry.”

    Post-war British industry has been characterised by inadequate investment in new plant and machinery. It has been characterised also by a low rate of industrial innovation, by which I mean the bringing of new products to market. It is ​ galling to observe the number of occasions on which an original British invention has been exploited by foreign industrialists, who are quicker to perceive the needs of the market place.

    My industrial experience leads me to the conclusion that we need innovative State enterprise. The Government propose to establish a National Enterprise Board as a vehicle for public ownership. I hope that one of its main objectives will be to create new industry in sectors in which private enterprise has failed or has lagged behind in the exploitation of opportunities.

    I have in mind the service industries for North Sea oil and gas, for example—a market which will be worth £500 million a year by the end of this decade, and a market in which the British share is today wholly inadequate.

    The world-wide demand for oil and gas equipment and services within a few years is estimated at £1,500 million a year. If we can get into this market now, the export opportunities will be prodigious.

    Similarly, I believe that State enterprise is needed to substitute home-produced goods for many of our imports, particularly in the electronic, office equipment and machinery sectors, large elements of which have an adverse balance of trade at the moment.

    We have seen from the previous Government that we are all interventionists now. I hope that intervention in industry from now on will bring much-needed industrial development to regions such as East Anglia, and will lead to the new industries which this country must create in order to survive.

    In industrial relations we have recently seen the failure of attempts to constrain labour negotiations by a legalistic framework. The truth is that industrial relations are human relations. They are about the interaction of management and labour in the attempt to find accommodations of sometimes conflicting, and sometimes mutual, interests. These accommodations can be found only by agreements freely and voluntarily arrived at as a result of bargaining, of give and take, of continual adjustment between management and labour.

    The Government’s rôle should be to provide a conciliation and arbitration service, which is always ready unobtrusively to help the parties to reach agreement. I trust that the reforms set out in the Gracious Speech will herald just such a rôle for the Government.

    Industry is ready for an advance towards industrial democracy. A new generation of workers is not inclined passively to accept what used to be called the rights of management. I hope that industrial democracy will advance by means of company supervisory boards on which directly elected workers will have half the membership and which will vet and consider policy issues which affect working people—acquisition policies, diversification policies, location policies, personnel policies, conditions of service and the other things which directly affect the lives of people.

    One of the most unfortunate aspects of industry which have been seen recently is the extent to which asset strippers could take productive enterprises and throw the workers out on the cobbles because the property values of the factory were greater than the value of the production from it.

    Many managers are now persuaded of the sense of the course of development that I advocate. Until people know that their interests are perceived, understood and cared for by top management, the suspicion and hostility which plague so many areas of industrial relations in this country will continue, to the detriment of our economy and to the fundamental detriment of our society.

  • Colin Phipps – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Colin Phipps, the then Labour MP for Dudley West, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) will forgive me if, on the occasion of my maiden speech, I do not comment on his excellent remarks.

    I understand that in a maiden speech it is customary to pay tribute to one’s predecessor and one’s constituents and to speak for not more than 10 minutes. Because of boundary redistribution I have two predecessors, and I hope that to do them justice the House will allow me a little more time.

    One of my predecessors is, happily, still a Member of the House. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards) part of whose old constituency of Bilston is now in my constituency of Dudley, West. It ​ will hardly be necessary for me to extol my hon. Friend’s virtues, as the House will have a continuing opportunity to observe them. However, I pay my personal tribute to him for the help he has already given me and the help he has promised to me for the future. Indeed, he has already gone so far as to pass to me a large file containing his most intractable constituency problems. I am extremely pleased that he is still a Member of this House.

    I am equally pleased that my other predecessor is no longer a Member—not because of any shortcomings on his part but because his absence is the necessary condition for my presence. Mr. Fergus Montgomery, the former Member for Brierley Hill, was, I understand, a well-liked and effective Member of this House, and on behalf of his former constituents I should like to wish him every future success, preferably in a Liberal seat.

    I am happy to give my unqualified approval to the wisdom and judgment of my constituents. Dudley, West, centred on the town of Brierley Hill, is famous for the manufacture of the finest cut crystal, steel, bricks and pork pies in Great Britain. It will be my continuing pleasure in the coming years to make this House more familiar with these products.
    My reason for wishing to speak at this early stage of the debate is that I am by profession an oil geologist and am therefore particularly concerned with energy matters. However, before addressing the House on the subject, I must declare my interest in the North Sea. I am a director of two companies engaged in exploration in the North Sea, a director of a company engaged in supplying services to drilling rigs in the North Sea, and a director of a consultant company advising several other companies engaged in exploration and other activities in the North Sea—all, I am glad to say, British.

    I must also declare an interest in the formation of a national hydrocarbons corporation. I was a member of the Labour Party’s study group which first proposed such a body in 1967, a proposal which was adopted by the Labour Party conference that same year. The previous Labour Government, I regret to say, did not implement it and I am disappointed that there is no specific mention of such a corporation in the Gracious Speech. However, I understand ​ that its formation is being considered and I should like to make some points in its favour.

    The formation of a national hydrocarbons corporation directly involved in the North Sea would provide us with a body of practical expertise at the national call. The staff of such a corporation would always be more expert than that of a Government Department, and it is essential that this country’s technical representatives should be as expert and as informed as those of the oil companies.

    Oil differs from other minerals such as coal in that the rate of extraction actually affects the ultimate recovery. I will not go into the technical reasons for this, but it means that the maximum ultimate recovery of oil is always different from the maximum profitable recovery of oil, and it is this difference which causes the greater part of the disagreements and arguments between oil companies and the Governments of producing countries. Having represented both sides in these arguments, I assure the House of the extreme importance of expert technical representation for the sake of the national interest.

    I believe that a direct national working interest in the North Sea is more acceptable to the industry and of greater benefit to this country than some purely fiscal interest. By vesting all future licences in such a corporation, whereby the oil companies become contractual partners with the corporation in all future explorations, we can ensure that we control which companies are invited to become involved, and in particular we can make sure that many of the one-man promotional outfits, never intending to drill but which have done so well out of trading their interests in the past two years, will be excluded.

    In saying that, I do not wish to make the point that small companies do not play an important rôle in the industry. They do. By taking some doubtful blocks and doing initial exploration on them before inviting a larger company to become involved, they often get exploration moving where it otherwise would not take place. However, many of the companies which received licences in the last two rounds never had any intention of spending any money at all. In the sense that they have bartered their interests to other companies, they ​ are robbing the national Exchequer. A national hydrocarbons corporation could also insist on a proper British participation, and thereby of Scottish and Welsh participation, in any licences.

    Such a corporation would also ensure that contractors—that is, companies contracted to it—used British goods and services and helped to develop an indigenous British industry, again with special reference to Scotland and Wales. The corporation could insist on such things as joint pipeline networks which would enable fields of marginal economics to be exploited. It could also control unitisation and secondary recovery projects and the offtake and depletion policies best for the national interest.

    Finally, such a corporation would be the obvious vehicle to promote British interests in the international oil industry. Existing licences, which may be subject to renegotiation, would also come under its control. As a piece of positive national enterprise, I believe that a national hydrocarbons corporation would yield great benefits to the community. I have pursued its creation since 1966 and I hope to be in this House this Session when it is born. I thank the House for its attention.

  • Peter Walker – 1974 Speech on Industry and Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Walker, the then Conservative MP for Worcester, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I congratulate the Minister, first, on being returned to the House of Commons in what was considered to be a marginal constituency against a diversity of opponents and, secondly, on taking up his new and important Cabinet office. It is said that when Winston Churchill returned to the Admiralty a message was immediately radioed to the Fleet “Winston is back”. Unfortunately, two-thirds of what would have been the right hon. Gentleman’s fleet sailed off to other commands the moment he returned. I am not certain whether that was at their request or at the instigation of the Prime Minister. One thing is certain: it was not at the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Industry.

    It is surprising that such a change should have taken place with no comment yesterday by the Prime Minister and no comment today by the Secretary of State for Industry. When in the past considerable changes have taken place in the construction of Whitehall there has been in-depth discussion with the Civil Service and sometimes White Papers have been published. The fragmentation of the former Department of Trade and ​ Industry in this way without discussion and without consultation will result in some considerable disadvantages to the Government.

    I bring this to the Government’s attention in the hope that they will be able to overcome the harm which fragmentation will do to the regional set-up of the Department. During the last two or three years there has been a considerable strengthening in the quality and grade of staff at the regional offices, and this has had a considerable impact upon the development of industry in the regions. In the regional offices there is a combination of staff capable of applying the various facets of the Industry Act, who can look after the export potentialities of the region and the industrial development certificate policy and positively encourage small businesses. To weaken those regional offices by splitting them up between three Departments will prove to be a considerable disadvantage.

    As Secretary of State for Industry the right hon. Gentleman will find grave disadvantage in not having in his Department information about the export and import substitution potential that automatically comes from the trade side of Government. There were many instances where we applied the Industry Act on the basis of information that we had from the trade side of the Department. That will no longer be available to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Likewise, in the development of major industrial investment programmes, it was of tremendous advantage in the Department of Trade and Industry—for example, when we embarked upon the steel modernisation programme—to call in the steel plant managers and link them with the international potentialities of exporting steel plants on the back of a healthy domestic demand. That type of linkage between domestic demand in industry, for which the right hon. Gentleman will have responsibility, and export potential will be severely handicapped by the new structure.

    The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned monopolies and mergers and the importance of having a positive policy to pursue the proposals that he has in mind. I presume that monopolies and mergers are no longer his responsibility ​ as they have been moved to the new Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. In the old Department consumer aspects were looked into by the Minister responsible for consumer affairs; likewise, industrial policies and rationalisation aspects were very much concerned with the industry part of the Department. To have monopolies and mergers firmly with the consumer affairs side of government and not in the right hon. Gentleman’s hands will prove a considerable disadvantage.

    Another remarkable break-up has taken place as a result of the move without any form of consultation or national dialogue. The right hon. Gentleman will be responsible for the aircraft industry and the Secretary of State for Trade will be responsible for civil aviation. I am sure that the aircraft industry will be quick to tell him that its most important consideration is the procurement programme from the civil aviation side of what used to be the Department of Trade and Industry. Here again is an important break which will prove to the disadvantage of the future development of our economy.

    The right hon. Gentleman has said very little about inward investment. I think he will be advised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lever) that one of the most important aspects of any Government policy over the next few years will be the encouragement of inward investment into this country. The right hon. Gentleman has no international presence in his new post. To have no international presence at a time when we want to encourage inward investment will be a grave and serious disadvantage.

    I turn now to the Government’s outward investment policies. There may come a time when the Secretary of State for Industry should be actively engaged in encouraging outward investment from this country. The right hon. Gentleman’s new Department will not have the strength to carry out that function.

    Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the outgoing Government intended that there should be large foreign investment in the energy industry in this country and yet decided ​ to hive off the energy side from the Department of Trade and Industry?

    Mr. Walker

    I know of no decision to have large outside investment in the energy industry in this country. It was not the policy of the then Government.

    On all these aspects there is no doubt that seemingly this decision was taken not on the basis of any logic about Whitehall or any improvement in the efficiency of developing commercial strategy, but on the basis of trying to find separate Cabinet posts for three Ministers.

    I welcome the Prime Minister’s approach in 1974 as opposed to the approach that he made on forming a Government in 1964. We do not know whether this new approach is due to the size of his minority or to the lessons that he learned from the experiences of 1964. It is interesting to note that in 1964 his first task was to maximise the importance of the £800 million deficit, and, having got this out of perspective, his actions in increasing consumer demand soon shattered confidence abroad. He has not made that mistake on this occasion. Yesterday he recited how stagnation, the rising unemployment that took place in the regions during the period of the last Labour Government and the lack of achieving the social service success that he endeavoured to obtain was the price that he paid for the manner in which he handled the situation then.

    The Prime Minister was right to emphasise the record export order books of British industry at this time. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Industry today followed the Prime Minister’s example by correctly emphasising the potential opportunities that now exist instead of emphasising that the size and magnitude of the deficit on trade which faces the country has to be met by massive deflationary policies.

    Now that the Government recognise the true reality of the deficit on our trade, resulting from a massive increase in the importation of new machinery, vital raw materials and, the biggest factor, the enormous increase in world prices, they must consider the approach that they will bring to the economic scene. There is no doubt that if we had pursued the policies that the then Opposition advocated of going for heavy deflationary ​ policies over the last 12 months, we would have crippled the investment potentiality of this country for a generation. It was right not to pursue that policy.
    I hope that the Government will genuinely pursue the twin objectives outlined by the Secretary of State for Industry of exports and investment as the two main priorities.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

    As a man who started his business career by running off with the Co-op divi and finishing up in Government, leaving us with a deficit on 31st December of £2,348 million, and rising every minute, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his more relaxed way of life, he will now be going back to Slater-Walker to reorganise its many disparate interests not only here but abroad?

    Mr. Walker

    No. I shall be staying here to listen to the eloquent speeches so constantly made by the hon. Gentleman. One would miss his wit far too much if one lost any opportunity of being in the House.

    I wonder how the Government hope to give priority to exports and investment when they are already advocating having no statutory wages policy. To have a free-for-all in wages, to increase taxation on potential savers in this country and to increase consumer demand by various items of public expenditure in combination is a policy which will be of considerable disadvantage both to exports and to investment.

    I hope that the new Secretary of State for Trade will get into perspective the importance of Common Market trade to the future of our export programme. When the previous Labour Government left office our exports to Common Market countries were £2,355 million a year. They are now over £4,000 million a year, comprising nearly a third of our total exports. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Trade, with his hostility to Europe, must be very careful in his negotiations not to endanger that considerable proportion of our trade. Not only is it a substantial proportion, but it is one of the fastest rising areas of our trade. Whereas our exports nationally went up by 26 per cent. last year, our exports to the Community went up by 39 per ​ cent. It was a major contribution to our export drive, and for the Government to negotiate on Europe on a basis that would handicap that trade would be of considerable disadvantage to us.

    I hope, too, that, on the question of exports, the Government will pay far greater respect to new markets in the world—such as Iran—than they did when they were in opposition. I say that because these markets in the Middle East will be of considerable importance to our future trade potentiality. The comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite when we were negotiating trade agreements with Iran were anything but friendly and tended to be hostile to such arrangements, and I hope that there will be moves by the Government to repair the bad reputation which they have in those countries.

    I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry will do everything in his power to encourage the maximum increase in export prices because there is an immense opportunity for us to increase and improve our export performance. Our goods are exceedingly competitive in world markets, and it must be in our interests to raise prices to the maximum levels obtainable in those markets. That means that the profits of the companies concerned will rise. When ICI declared record profits recently many hostile remarks were made about them, but I hope that the Government will recognise that a great deal of that increase resulted from exports. It would be disastrous if the Government were to do anything other than encourage the maximum profits from export markets, but so far there is no indication that they intend to encourage exporters in that way.

    The Government must encourage investment. The Secretary of State for Industry said that a prime task would be to get far more investment into British industry and re-equip it. The Prime Minister has described himself as the custodian of the manifesto. Fortunately, judging from his speech yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman interprets his rôle of custodian as that of seeing that the manifesto’s proposals are kept under lock and key, and we commend him on that decision.

    I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry realises that real damage is done to investment by the existence of nationalisation proposals. One cannot illustrate ​ that better than by considering the record of investment in the steel industry. Yesterday the Prime Minister mentioned steel as one of the potential shortages which could handicap future economic growth. Any student of the steel industry will recognise that from 1964 to 1966 steel investment went down from £180 million a year to £50 million because of the threat of nationalisation. During the period after nationalisation the industry was unable to start its investment programme, and that meant that from 1963 to 1970 steel investment was more than halved, and not under me but under you. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Speaker, because you certainly would not be guilty of such policies. The Prime Minister was responsible for the biggest drop in steel investment since the war, and the Conservative Government inherited the problem of the lack of steel capacity.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

    The right hon. Gentleman was most kind to refer to what I said yesterday about the steel shortage. I said that it was due to the three-day week. I cannot understand why no one from the Opposition Front Bench has mentioned that in this debate.

    Mr. Walker

    If the right hon. Gentleman had taken an interest in these matters during the week before the General Election he would have known that long before the three-day week was introduced there was a shortage of steel because of the lack of investment due to his policies. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that no nationalisation proposals would be introduced without going through the full parliamentary process. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that no nationalisation proposal could go through the full parliamentary procedure in this Parliament. He has, by that commitment, shown that during this Parliament he does not intend to proceed with any nationalisation proposals. If that is so, it would be in the interests of encouraging investment in the aircraft, shipbuilding, pharmaceutical, road haulage and machine tool industries if the Government were to make it clear that they have no intention of introducing such proposals.

    Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pharmaceutical industry. Is he aware ​ that 75 per cent. of National Health Service purchases are from foreign-owned companies?

    Mr. Walker

    That industry is one of our major exporters, and I believe that if the Secretary of State for Industry consults the workers before introducing nationalisation proposals he will not proceed with its nationalisation.

    Mr. Benn

    As the right hon. Gentleman was associated with the take-over of a number of firms without any pretence of consultation with the people whose futures were at stake, perhaps he will recognise that our proposals for public ownership follow long and deep consultations with the workers involved and that in every case the industry concerned has suffered from private management.

    Mr. Walker

    I still remember the telegram that I received from the shop stewards of Rolls-Royce about the complete lack of consultation by the right hon. Gentleman on his nationalisation proposals. That was to be done without any consultation with anybody, and originally without compensation. We know how shallow is the consultation by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side.

    Nationalisation proposals cannot be anything but a discouragement to investment in a number of vital spheres, such as the machine tool industry. I hope that, in the climate of this Parliament, instead of hiding behind the words in the Gracious Speech and saying that the full parliamentary process will be adopted for any nationalisation proposals, the Government will come clean and say that they have no intention of nationalising this industry during this Parliament.

    The Government will have to deal with the manner in which they will raise money for their proposals to increase public expenditure. They must face the reality of some of the myths which they created when in opposition about where the money would come from. There was the myth that it would all come from North Sea oil. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State for Industry say this afternoon that we should have to wait for that and that people must not rely on it too much as it is very much in the future, because during the election campaign, whenever it was asked where the money would come from, it was said that ​ more money would be obtained from North Sea oil. The Government now know that it will be several years before there will be a chance of taxing profits from North Sea oil, because it will not be available for about that period.

    The same comment applies to company profits. Another bogy was that the big corporations would be taxed far more than they are now, but, with dividend restraint and price restrictions limiting profit margins at home, the only possible scope for increasing taxation is in company profits made from exports, and that is not the way to encourage people to export.

    On the question of capital gains, the Financial Times ordinary index is lower than it was four years ago or 10 years ago, and the Government will not have a great source of revenue there. The fact is that if the Government embark on the heavy increases in taxation which they have in mind they will have to tax savings, and that is not the way to encourage investment.

    The Secretary of State will soon discover that with the present problem of liquidity and of trying to compete abroad it is vital to maintain a healthy capital market here. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that he will lose the confidence of industry, which is vital to his programme to increase investment. In addition, he will lose confidence abroad. I hope that the more commonsense approach to the problem of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Central in his new rôle will influence the decisions that the Government take.

    During our three and a half years in office we accepted that the Government had many functions to perform in a modern free enterprise society. The Government have a duty to pursue fiscal policies that will encourage growth. They must help shape the economy so that it is equipped to benefit as fully as possible from the changing pattern of world trade. The Government must set parameters for the protection of the natural environment and improving wherever possible the manmade environment. They have to decide upon the proportion of resources to be allocated to the social services. They have to provide an education system that not only enriches people’s minds throughout their lives but opens up more possibilities of equality of opportunity. They have to see that the framework of law in which the corporation operates is equable, open and fully accountable to the nation as a whole. They have to see that the power of the consumer is strong enough to have its proper impact upon the quality and diversity of products.

    The Government have to see that forward-looking regional policies are pursued so that the fruits of the new capitalism are not concentrated on any one region but are shared fairly throughout the nation. They have to see that training and retraining facilities for those engaged in industry are tackled to meet the challenges of technological change.

    In three and a half years we did bring growth back to the economy; we did help to reshape the economy to meet new challenges overseas; we did bring about a build-up of the major investment programme from which the economy will now benefit.

    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

    Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituency for restoring growth to that area by giving it intermediate status?

    Mr. Walker

    It was indeed the regions of the North-West and North-East and Wales and Scotland, where unemployment was rising during the last years of the previous Labour Government, which benefited most from the growth in the economy which we achieved. We devoted far more of the nation’s resources to the social services and education than our predecessors did. We prepared the legislation to make corporations more accountable. We substantially improved the power of the consumer and we brought many new jobs and opportunities to the regions most in need of them.

    But in all these areas we have much further progress to make, and it is our intention to use such period of opposition as is available to us to prepare for further progress towards the creation of a society enjoying all the advantages from man’s enterprise and initiative and harnessing the economic growth he creates to bringing about a better quality of society.

  • Tony Benn – 1974 Speech on Industry and Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Benn, the Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    In common with all other Ministers my task will be to prepare, to discuss and then, subject to Cabinet priorities, to bring before Parliament the proposals put forward to the country by the Government. First, however, I should like to deal with the immediate situation. The main task facing the Government on taking office was to settle the miners’ dispute, to lift the energy restrictions and to allow British industry to get back to full-time working by ending the three-day week, which we argued was quite unnecessary. These three objectives have already been achieved. Although we shall never catch up entirely with the production lost during that period—nor will the wages lost be replaced—at least the recovery period has begun.

    In looking forward there are some encouraging features which I think the House would wish to know. First, output held up better than was feared, and since many firms gave priority to export customers the loss of exports was less than might have happened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be reporting on the resumption of power supplies to industry and the recovery of coal production and oil supplies.

    For my part, I can tell the House that the steel industry should be back to near normal by April. Order books are ​ healthy and most of industry should be working normally within a month, although there are bound to be some sectors, heavily dependent on component supplies, whose work programmes were severely disrupted and will take longer. Some bottlenecks of supplies are bound to arise, and there may be cash flow difficulties.

    My Department is at the disposal of firms which may be affected and they should get in touch with the regional offices or with the Department centrally if they want help. Some hon. Members have already raised individual difficulties with me where these have arisen in their constituencies, and I hope that other hon. Members who have problems reported to them will also feel free to get in touch with me or my fellow Ministers.

    I wish to pay tribute to the co-operation in industry in minimising the difficulties that have been experienced and to those who are now showing such determination in catching up with as much as possible of what has been lost and in getting production back to full swing.

    Even though the atmosphere has improved and the immediate recovery prospects are better than might have been expected, it would be totally wrong to underestimate the magnitude of the task of industrial renewal which now confronts Britain, British industry and hence Parliament itself.

    The policies which we developed in Opposition and put before the people in the election were designed to meet problems in the national interest. They now have an added relevance, for the mining strike masked the other more fundamental economic and industrial problems to which oil price increases have added an extra dimension. The prospects of national advantage that may accrue through the development of North Sea and Celtic Sea gas and oil are encouraging, but it would be foolish for any of us to suppose that all that has to be done is to mark time until we are saved by an oil bonanza which will return us to an era of automatic prosperity.

    Everybody recognises that Britain must concentrate on exports and on building a strong industrial base, without which we cannot furnish those exports. We also need investment in our energy and energy-saving programmes and to secure the ​ living standards and the public service provision to which our people are entitled.

    Let me turn to the problems of investment with which my Department is deeply concerned. On the industrial side the main immediate problems may arise from the fact that the three-day week, with its associated cash flow consequences, could lead to some deferment of investment plans. I must tell the House frankly that we cannot now count upon earlier estimates of an increase of 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. in manufacturing investment to be realised this year.

    Even if the lower figure of 12 per cent. had been reached it would only have restored the position to that level which we had in 1970, when the last Labour Government left office.

    Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

    As the right hon. Gentleman has outlined the matter so concisely, will he give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will encourage profits so that he can get the investment from industry and thus be able to get what he wants?

    Mr. Benn

    If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the argument in my own way he will see that I shall turn to that question. He may also note that the fall in profits in 1974 will be attributable to the three-day week which he and his colleagues introduced in the pursuit of their policy.

    Industrialists and trade union leaders have long agreed that our long-term prospects depend on getting investment levels nearer to those that have been achieved by other major industrial countries. We must use what we have better and select what we need in quality, and see that the total figures rise.

    The problems of using our existing investment effectively and of getting the level up explain why the Gracious Speech referred to the

    “urgent consultation on measures to encourage the development and re-equipment of industry.”

    These matters have already been touched on in general terms when the TUC and CBI came to 10 Downing Street and were raised when the CBI came to see me, and at the NEDC meeting on Monday. They will be discussed in detail with the nationalised industries, major companies and ​ individual trade unions at almost all the meetings which I shall be having with them.

    Investment will also feature very much in the many discussions we hope to have in Scotland and Wales, and the English regions. This explains why high priority has to be given to the stimulation of regional development. My colleagues in the Department and I look forward to these discussions.

    As the House knows, there is a dual vulnerability in development areas in the redundancy among managers as well as workers which may occur either through under-investment or the failure to attract new investment. When these companies are also victims of take-overs and asset stripping the problems are intensified.

    With regard to the regional employment premium, we shall at least maintain the existing arrangement while considering further possibilities for the future.

    It is often argued that we cannot get investment up until confidence has been established. Obviously, the two go together. But I invite the House to consider for a moment just what confidence really is. It has been interpreted in the past simply and solely as constituting political support of the City of London or the international financial community in the Government of the day, and their policies, with the implication that whatever price they might exact in return for that support had to be paid by Governments adopting policies, however harsh, dictated by them.

    Obviously, any nation must enjoy international confidence, but if there is one lesson we have learned over the past three months it is that the confidence of working people in their Government and in their own future is also an essential ingredient in national confidence, and for that matter in international confidence, too.

    The last Government initially enjoyed the confidence of the City and industry—a confidence gained partly in return for its commitment to policies which were hostile to the trade unions. In the ensuing confrontation, it should be noted, the last Government lost the confidence of working people and then some of its own supporters as well.

    This Government put to the electors a new social contract as the main plank in ​ their programme, not only because we believe—[interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene I shall be happy to give way.

    Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is talking nonsense when he suggests that policies which encouraged the City and industry were against the interest of the workers, because it was recognised that both have to go together? The right hon. Gentleman’s father remembered that capital and labour must go together and must not be disturbed by such words as he is using.

    Mr. Benn

    The hon. Gentleman at least amplified the monosyllabic insults he was casting by a rather inadequate forecast of the speech he might hope to make. I hope that the House will allow these matters to be discussed, because the characteristic of the past three months has been a breakdown in confidence in the country, which was due—this is the argument we put forward and adhered to—to the view the Government adopted towards workpeople and their problems over a wide range of policy.

    This Government put to the electors a new social contract as the main plank in their programme, not only because we believe in the elements in that contract but because we do not believe that confidence can be restored without such a new contract based upon policies designed to bring about a shift in the balance of power and wealth. The new social contract which we are set upon achieving has implications for industrial policy as well as for taxation policy, housing policy or social policy.

    In developing our industrial strategy for the period ahead, we have the benefit of much experience. Almost everything has been tried at least once—[An HON. MEMBER: “Including you.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to me, he will hear me say that we have the benefit of a great deal of experience which we can draw on in developing our policies.
    Successive Governments have tried rigid centralised controls and an abandonment of controls. They have tried restricting expansion to achieve a foreign surplus, and a dash for growth at the expense of a huge payments deficit. Apart from all our macro-economic solutions, we have been through the whole gamut of micro-industrial policies, from propping up lame ducks to killing them off, and back again.

    The one constant element throughout this long history of policy has been the fact that these alternatives have been largely centrally decided and imposed and have been seen as problems of economics and management rather than as problems of politics and consent. Indeed, it is a curious paradox that the most rigid and comprehensive armoury of central controls ever instituted over the entire range of the British economy came from a party dedicated to free enterprise and market forces, which, when they were applied, developed in a direction which threatened and weakened the authority of Parliament.

    Any constructive long-term industrial strategy must be developed by the longer, slower route of real consultation and power sharing, all done more openly. There is no alternative. I have no intention of repeating the tragedy of the long and damaging confrontation with labour which has occurred over the past three years by setting out on a long and equally damaging confrontation with the CBI and the management of British industry. I am not seeking a woolly consensus that dodges difficult issues or delays necessary adjustments by covering them up, but it is central to my argument that the most difficult industrial issues and the necessary adjustments that everyone in Britain must make can be made only after the most detailed and painstaking joint discussion. It is no use asking people in industry to act responsibly if they are the victims of decisions taken irresponsibly.

    People, including workers and managers, are entitled to know the choices before the decisions are made and to feel that those decisions are taken in the interests of the community. Workers up to and including skilled industrial management, and Government, with their even wider responsibilities to the nation, are inextricably bound up together, and the relationship between all three must reflect that reality.

    Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

    May we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade—whoever will have ​ the responsibility—will be taking an early opportunity to issue a Green Paper for discussion on the two-tier structure of companies and workers’ participation therein?

    Mr. Benn

    As the previous Labour Government introduced the concept of a Green Paper and managed to develop a system of open government that was closed in many areas by its successors, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that when we talk about the desirability of open discussion that is in line with our practice, and certainly with our intentions. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend’s Department, because I am talking about my own, but it is part of my argument that if decisions are to succeed they must be reached after full discussion.

    Disengagement has been tried and has failed. What we must decide now is the nature of the engagement that there must be, the rules that will govern it, the consultation that will accompany it, and the national purposes it must serve.
    In hard, practical terms, there must be as close a relationship between the Department of Industry and the trade union movement as has long existed and must remain between my Department and industrial management. It will be my firm resolve to develop those relationships with the TUC and national trades unions, and through them with workers at the shopfloor level, to the same degree as now exists with the CBI, top industrial management and local management.
    Bringing the workers into industrial discussions and planning at Government level alongside management is a much bigger task than might appear, and it will take time. Consultative arrangements on this scale do not now exist. As they come into operation, they will necessarily affect the flow of industrial decisions that have hitherto been based upon the one-sided contacts with industrial management and the City.

    It might be argued that if workers who are likely to be affected by a wide range of industrial decisions are really to be consulted before those decisions are reached, the pace of decision making will be slowed down. That is true, but the compensating advantage is that the decisions will be more likely to be right and more likely to be acceptable.

    Arbitrary decisions followed by predictable resistance and long-term frustration constitute an even more lengthy and expensive process. Executive management is just as concerned with this problem.

    Who knows what would have happened if some of the skill and energy generated by the Clydeside shipyard workers during their campaign for the right to work had been available more directly to influence Government decisions about the shipbuilding industry, or had been released to serve that industry much earlier still?

    In inviting constructive contributions from workers as well as national trade union officers before industrial policy decisions are made—and that is what I am doing—we shall necessarily be obliged to consider very seriously what it is that they are saying to us. It is amazing that in 1974 it should be necessary to make a conscious decision to invite systematically the views of workers in addition to receiving the opinions of those who own or manage our industrial enterprises, with whom consultations will and must continue.

    Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those workers in industries affected by the threat of nationalisation will have the right to be consulted on the question whether they wish to be nationalised?

    Mr. Benn

    The hon. Gentleman had better allow me to continue with my speech. If he will cast his mind back over the history of public ownership he will recall that it was the miners and the railwaymen who campaigned continuously for the public ownership of their industries and, indeed, that the policy of denationalisation to which some members of the Opposition were attracted was frustrated by the knowledge that, whatever may be the difficulties in the public sector, the commitment of those who work in the public sector to its continuation is very deep. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue with my speech he will see the answer that I propose to give to the question that he has put.

    Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

    I welcome the Minister’s conversion to the policy of the Liberal Party. Should not one of the policies to which he has just referred also be applied to nationalised industries?

    Mr. Benn

    I am coming to the proposals, but neither I nor my party share the proposals on industrial democracy that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, because we believe them to be a form of window dressing. I hope to carry him with me—[Laughter.]—or perhaps the hon. Gentleman would carry me with him—in considering the need for much closer consultation between Government and the trade union movement in the areas of policy for which Government are responsible. I am not discussing industrial democracy; I am talking about relations between my Department and the trade unions.

    I come now to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The industrial policy proposals which form the central part of the manifesto upon which the Labour Party fought the election were in fact produced after consultation with the trade unions—and others—on the basis that I have described. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, he would have heard me say that. If he looks at the proposals that have been published, for example, on the shipbuilding industry, he will find that they emerged after the longest and most detailed discussion with the representatives of the workers in the shipbuilding industry.

    I do not ask the House to accept our proposals just because they were arrived at by that process, or to neglect other interests that have to be considered, but I do recommend the proposals to the House for serious study and consideration, because they embody opinions that this nation cannot afford to ignore or set aside if a coherent industrial strategy is to be evolved.

    The provisions of the proposed Industry Act outlined in our programme, and which will form the basis of the Bill—
    “to consolidate and develop existing legislation”—

    to use the words of the Gracious Speech—contain provisions that Labour thinks necessary for such a strategy. The Bill would, for example, give to the Government, amongst other things, the power ​ to obtain information and to make it more generally available, the power to make industrial decision making more accountable, the power in the national interest to prevent foreign take-overs and the power to put in an official trustee to assume temporary control of any company which fails to meet its responsibilities to its workers, its customers or the community. All this stems from the experience of recent years.

    Similarly, the proposal to introduce planning agreements with major industrial enterprises not only meets the requirements of those who work in the firms concerned and those who live in the areas where jobs are hardest to come by but are also clearly in the national interest if we mean to harness our productive potential to the urgent tasks of industrial renewal.

    Even the proposals for the extension of public ownership, supposedly so controversial, emerge from those who work in industries where the present structure either condemns them to disorganised decline or hampers their prospects of long-term expansion and development. We are certainly not committed to the forms of public ownership which have been followed in the past, since neither the great public corporations nor the private company status of Rolls-Royce (1971) seem to us to constitute the ultimate wisdom of public sector management. The National Enterprise Board to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday is one such new form of public ownership which merits serious consideration.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the House of Commons will have the opportunity not only of debating and voting upon the Industry Bill but also upon any extensions of public ownership that will be submitted to Parliament for decision through the full parliamentary legislative process.

    When the provisions of the Industry Bill are published they will be seen to be founded upon precedents created in many cases by the previous Government, but the provisions of the Bill, by contrast, will tend towards a dispersal of power rather than its centralisation. This, too, will be the keynote of any proposals for real industrial democracy that may in due time come before Parliament. I very much hope that the House will reserve ​ its judgment upon all these proposals until it has had a chance to study them, and that hon. Members will relate what is put before them to their experience in their own constituencies.

    My experience, both as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a former Minister with similar responsibilities to the ones I now exercise, has highlighted some of the misuse and abuse of industrial and financial power at the expense of professional managers and workers, and such gaps in the network of public accountability we intend to fill.
    This, then, is the way in which I intend to approach my task as Industry Secretary. The proposals that I shall put forward will all be based upon proper consultation, and will be designed to meet the national interest, and on that basis I shall seek the support of the House for them. The issues of public policy that they raise will all be brought out into the open for real debate in public in the House of Commons, where the power of decision lies and must lie.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Conservative MP for Richmond, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2015.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my first contribution to this House, and may I take this opportunity to commend all the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today on both sides of the House?

    It may surprise my hon. Friends to learn that part of me is a little sad to be here, because the fact that I am standing here means that this Chamber has said goodbye to one of its finest parliamentarians, my predecessor the right hon. William Hague.

    William enjoyed a distinguished career over 26 years. He oversaw a landmark Bill to improve rights for the disabled, led our party and served as Foreign Secretary. But his true mark can be found at home in Richmond. He was an outstanding local MP, as well as an outstanding Yorkshireman.​

    I once arranged a visit to a tiny, remote village and imagined that, for once, I might outdo my predecessor. On arrival, I was told that not only had he held a surgery in the village recently, but that the Foreign Secretary had arrived in a Harrier jet having flown in from a meeting with the President of the United States.

    Some have wondered about William Hague’s future. Perhaps he will heed the advice of his Prime Minister who suggested he ought to become the new James Bond. In the Prime Minister’s own words:

    “he’s fit, he’s healthy, he does Yoga, he can probably crack a man’s skull between his knee caps.”

    That is hard to beat, but I did find a scintilla of encouragement on the campaign trail. Wandering through an auction market, I was introduced to a farmer as “the new William Hague”. He looked at me, quizzically, then said, “Ah yes, Haguey! Good bloke. I like him. Bit pale, though. This one’s got a better tan.”

    In today’s debate on Europe, we should remember that, as leader, William Hague campaigned to prevent Britain from joining the single European currency and instead to keep the pound. His judgment looks even more excellent today than it did then.

    We will miss his oratory, wit and intelligence, and I know that the whole House will join me in wishing him well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

    Sadly, William Hague’s predecessor, the late Lord Brittan, is no longer with us. Fortunately, however, Lord Brittan’s predecessor, Sir Timothy Kitson, still lives locally and his years of dedicated service are remembered fondly.

    The constituency of Richmond is known for its remarkable natural beauty. In the east lie the North Yorkshire moors and in the west sit the Yorkshire dales, with their distinctive dry stone walls, stone barns and softly rolling valleys. In fact, admiration for my constituency has even spread to the other side of the English channel, which is why, last year, the remote splendour of Wensleydale and Swaledale became part of the Tour de France.

    Interlaced with this natural beauty is a constant reminder of our nation’s heritage. Richmond castle sits magnificently at the heart of the constituency. Built by William the Conqueror, it has witnessed centuries of our nation’s history unfolding. Further afield in Great Ayton, Captain James Cook grew up and left Yorkshire to explore the world.

    I am also deeply honoured to represent our soldiers, airmen and their families living at RAF Leeming and at Catterick garrison, our largest Army base. We are home to the historic Green Howards, who served in the Napoleonic Wars, the Normandy landings and Afghanistan. I will never forget that so many of my constituents have risked their lives to protect our nation so that we may debate here in peace today.

    In spite of all this, the most remarkable aspect of my constituency is the strength, warmth and independent spirit of our communities. I am fiercely proud to represent them. And although I am not from Yorkshire, they were immensely relieved to learn I was not from Lancashire either!

    I intend to be a champion for the causes of the countryside. I want my hard-working rural constituents to have the strong public services they deserve and every opportunity to prosper.​

    Our excellent hospital, the Friarage, serves a sparse area of 1,000 square miles, with some patients travelling over an hour and a half to reach it. I shall be a loud voice for ensuring that our local hospital remains strong.

    Our rural schools require fair education funding so that they can remain the beating hearts of our villages. I shall be relentless in pushing for better broadband and better mobile phone coverage. The farmers who feed us, proud stewards of our landscape, are too often taken for granted and left alone to battle regulation. Many of our small businesses are making significant exports, and I am determined to help them to give Yorkshire an even bigger place on the map of the world than it already has—if that is possible!

    My grandparents arrived in this country with little. My parents, now a GP and a pharmacist, grew up wanting a better future for their children. Today, I have the enormous privilege of standing here as a Member of Parliament. I owe a great debt to our country for what it has done for my family: showing tolerance, providing opportunities and rewarding their hard work.

    A great man once remarked that “some of you might not be here in 30 or 40 years” before reminding his audience that decisions made today shape the future for the next generation.

    I believe in a compassionate Britain that provides opportunity and values freedom. I hope I can play a small part in ensuring that our great nation continues to hold to those enduring values.