Blog

Stephen O Davies – 1967 Speech on Aberfan Inquiry

The speech made by Stephen O Davies, the then Labour MP for Merthyr Tydfil, in the House of Commons on 26 October 1967.

The House will probably understand why the day of this debate has been my most unhappy day in the very long years I have been a Member. It is not merely because the disaster took place in my constituency; it took place among men, women and even children whom I knew and know.

We hope that with the debate and the Report and recommendations of the Tribunal we shall put an end to disasters of the kind which occurred at Aberfan. It is not an easy job, but it must be done.

It is not my intention to add to the sorrows of my neighbours. A number of them are here today and they should leave the House with a conviction that their loss has not entirely been in vain, and that the House will take steps, as it can, to prevent such tragedies in the future. As an ex-miner, and a mining engineer, I have made a life-long study of mining. I have something to say about the potential dangers of similar tragedies that still exist, particularly in the South Wales coal field. On the whole, the coal seams are far below the surface and the physical topography of the Wales coal field adds immensely to the dangers of the tipping that has been going on. The National Coal Board inherited the practices of the long years before it had responsibility for the mines of this country.

When I was a young coal miner, working in a colliery immediately to the west of where this disaster occurred, I came up from the coal shaft one Monday afternoon—and Monday was a short day in the collieries—to the beautiful sunshine, and I saw on the mountainside, which must have been beautiful, too, at one time, rubbish and debris being tipped from the coal mine. Standing near me on my left was the general manager, a man for whom I had great respect. Indeed, he started many of us as students of mining and of science in coal mining. I turned to him—his name, like mine, was Davies—and I asked, “Mr. Davies, is not that an absolute scandal, bringing all this rubbish from underground and tipping it on the hillside, instead of scientifically stowing it underground and thus perhaps preventing in the future widespread subsidence in the coal field?” He was a great mining engineer. His answer was typical of those days. He said, “Stephen, let me tell you, confidentially, that I have to bring it out because it is cheaper to haul it up the shaft and tip it on the hillside”. Needless to say, I never reported that story while that first-class man held a responsibility under the old dispensation. He was extremely kind to the youngsters in the industry.

The Coal Board has inherited a beastly and unscientific tradition. It accepted what had been done in the old days. May I deal with the fact that Members of the House have no power to question anything done by the Coal Board which we feel ought to be questioned? I made that point while the Bill nationalising the industry was being passed through the House. In general I supported it, but there was one part of it which I did not like, and that was that we were lifting the industry out of the control of the House and vesting it in a number of unelected and unrepresentative men. I used that expression at the time, and I also pointed out that if a disaster happened in any of the collieries in my constituency and hundreds of lives were lost, neither I nor any other hon. Member would have the right to put a Question to the Minister, except by the grace of Mr. Speaker or his Deputy. We should have no such right unless it were conceded to us—and I say that with no disrespect to the Chair.

Some of us have spoken a lot about tipping during our days. I have mentioned the topography of these valleys in South Wales and the dangers of subsidence. Time is passing and subsidence is getting a bigger danger than ever. How are we to obviate that danger? We must get these tips cleared. There is no alternative.

We must be under no illusion that the Aberfan tips have been made safe by today. They have not been made safe. There are two tips right at the top of the old tip, to be seen glaring at us every day, full of threat. They might come down and cover some part of the village again. The Aberfan people insist —and I insist with them—that what is left of those tips must be removed. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales will be with us on this matter.

Mr. Marsh My hon. Friend has made an incredibly serious statement. As far as I am concerned, there is no foundation whatsoever for his suggestion that the tip at Aberfan still represents a danger to the village. Before I wind up the debate I will make further inquiries, but I thought that this was such a serious statement that I should intervene. I will make further inquiries and if what my hon. Friend says is not the case, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Davies I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it from coal miners, from those of us who live there, and I have lived there for nearly 50 years, and whose industrial preoccupation is still coal mining, that it is a danger. I should not like this to boomerang on my right hon. Friend after the statement which he has made. I repeat that it is a danger, an obvious danger. I am not panicking over this, although I can forgive certain people who may get a little panicky about it. My right hon. Friend must abandon his opinion, because we had assurances of that kind over and over again before the disaster happened. We were told, “Everything is all right and perfectly safe”. I remind my right hon. Friend of those two tips at the very top, almost on the ridge of the hill between us in the valley and the west. I will tell him that if there is subsidence in that valley and that hillside, and if a creep or tremor runs up that hillside and sets those tips moving again, there could be very serious danger. My right hon. Friend must take advice on this from those who know something about coal mining and not be as ready to accept the advice of those who have misled from the very beginning.

I feel that it was rather unfortunate that at the very beginning of this great trouble the Attorney-General said that no prosecution would be engaged in whoever might be found responsible. That was a most unfortunate expression on his part. People have been found blameworthy and we say, consequently, guilty. The only thing that might mitigate that blame in the least is what I have already said—that they inherited traditions from the past when nothing but profit mattered. They carried on that tradition and, as a result, this disaster happened and others might again happen.

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) referred to the actions of the Press. I must say that, on the whole, the Press has been pretty good, bur there have been exceptions—cold-blooded, cheap, journalese exceptions, some in this country and some abroad. I shall not reproduce the horrible statements made in certain organs of the British Press, statements wholly unrelated to the feelings and expressions of those who suffered and are still suffering from the disaster. But I will quote to the House the filthiest classic of all. I have a photostat copy of the article. It is headed Aftermath of Aberfan Tragedy. It declares: Jealous parents”— can anyone here imagine anything more cruelly vicious and untruthful? Jealous parents of 116 dead kids”— that is not my word— vow to kill a child because he is alive. A whole page is given to this. It goes even further. It gives the name of a young woman of Aberfan and the name of her son. I know this family extremely well. With this write-up, the paper presented what was supposed to be a picture of mother and son. But in the picture the mother looks at least between 12 and 14 stone. The lady referred to, however, is hardly more than half that weight. I shall not upset the House by going into further detail but I think that this article has reached the limit of unscrupulous, conscienceless and cruel journalism.

I am pleased at least to say that that article was not printed in this country. It is from a greatly advertised American periodical called Midnight.

I have referred to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. That statement has not been accepted kindly by the people of Aberfan, and I can quite understand why. It is very difficult for any person to see why those adjudged guilty should not be made to make some amends for what they have been accused of doing. My right hon. and learned Friend’s statement at the outset was a mistake. It should be left to the courts to decide whether the Coal Board merely accepted the inherited traditions of the past without question. We in this House were not given the right to question anything that the Coal Board did. This House should nevertheless hold the Coal Board responsible and make it face the consequences of what it has done.

I know that I have been wandering in my speech but I am sure that I need not apologise to the House. This is the most unhappy time in my long service in this House. I hope that, in any case, the House will agree with me that these tips must be removed and that those still left in Aberfan must be removed at once.

The Aberfan tips are still a danger. I shall accept no statement to the contrary. I have lived in these valleys all my life and I know something about the effects of subsidence and the springs of water oozing from our hillsides We should not hesitate to finish the job at Atierfan and carry on with the job elsewhere, particularly, as I have said, in South Wales, where the physical topography adds to the dangers which already exist.

October 4, 2022
David Gibson-Watt – 1967 Speech on Aberfan Inquiry

The speech made by David Gibson-Watt, the then Conservative MP for Hereford, in the House of Commons on 26 October 1967.

I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the very sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this very difficult subject, for 21st October, 1966, will certainly rank as one of the grimmest days in Welsh history. It is not the first time that a mining community has suffered, for mining is a hard and dangerous calling, but it is the first time in the long history of the mining industry that the young have had to suffer.

Anyone who knows the valleys of Wales will agree that they have a special character. They are close communities. The valley which contains the two villages of Aberfan and Merthyr Vale has a community that is especially close, for a great proportion of the men employed there are employed in the Merthyr Vale Colliery. Mining, with all its hazards, creates a particular fraternity among those men, and this closeness was certainly never shown to better advantage than in the awful moments that followed the fatal disaster in October last year.

Whatever we say today in this debate, we should bear in mind that our main objective is to heal and to give strength to these people, and we should honour those who have suffered and not add to their suffering.

We would all wish to pay tribute to the many who helped after the disaster—the many volunteers spearheaded, of course, by the miners themselves; to the police, the Civil Defence, the ambulance and nursing services and other public bodies, the many voluntary services and organisations and, indeed, to the troops who came in later. Nor should the Welsh Office be without its share of credit, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the House some days after the disaster.

The administrative job, as the Secretary of State has said, was complicated by two factors: first, Aberfan falls under two authorities—Glamorgan and Merthyr Tydvil; secondly, the vast number of people who flocked to Aberfan on that day, some to gaze helplessly but many more to dig and to work. I myself, like other Members of the House, saw dozens of young volunteers going in their cars with equipment, only to be turned away, so great was the crush within the valley. Considering these two problems—the duplication of administration and the crowds who flocked there—the rescue and the clearance work was certainly very well done.

I would ask the Minister whether the aftermath of this disaster has perhaps changed some of the thinking in the Home Office on this matter. I also ask this question: on such an occasion, who should be in charge—a Minister, a mayor, a policeman or a Civil Defence officer. I think perhaps more guidance might be given on this point from the Home Office in case of any trouble in the future.

The Tribunal set up by the Secretary of State for Wales was, as the right hon. Gentleman said, composed of three well-known men, and was under the chairmanship of Sir Edmund Davies, a Lord Justice of Appeal, a popular man who was born and bred in the valleys. It is clear that they carried out their unpleasant and difficult task with sympathy and competence, and, indeed patience, for this Tribunal went on for an unnecessarily long time.

The Tribunal’s Report is clear. It is detailed and it makes recommendations to help the avoidance of future such disasters. On page 131 is the summary of its findings. The first finding is: Blame for the disaster rests upon the National Coal Board. The reasons for its findings are detailed in the Report, and the men whom the Tribunal describe as not being without blame have been named. I do not intend to pursue this. It is a heavy punishment indeed to be named by a tribunal of this sort.

But what a tale this Tribunal unfolded. It is a sombre catalogue of incompetence, subterfuge and failure, of warnings disregarded, a complete exposure of the lack of communication within the National Coal Board. It must seem incredible to anybody who reads this Report that Tip No. 7 on Merthyr Mountain should ever have been chosen and that it should have been tipped on for so long, when the water problems was abundantly clear, when the tailings problem was admitted and when there were so many complaints about Tip No. 7.

Complaints came from several organisations, including the Merthyr Corporation, many individuals and, in particular, Councillor Mrs. Williams, whose strong complaint in the Merthyr Planning Committee was reported in the Merthyr Express in 1964. She said: If the tip moved it could threaten the whole school. The complaints were frequent.

Let me quote but two from the Merthyr Corporation. They started in July, 1959, as we are told on page 52 of the Report. Letters from the Borough Engineer, Mr. Jones, in 1963, referred to apprehensions about the movement of slurry to the danger and detriment of people and property adjoining the site of the tips. The Deputy Borough Engineer, Mr. Bradley, in 1963, wrote a number of letters which were headed Danger from coal slurry being tipped at the rear of the Pantglas Schools. To all these complaints the National Coal Board turned a deaf ear. It went on tipping. I cannot entertain the suggestion that the Merthyr Corporation can be held responsible in any way, nor, indeed could the Tribunal. As Mr. Alun Davies, Q.C., said at the Tribunal: …perhaps the natural mistake made by the Merthyr Corporation was that it accepted the opinions of the experts of this organisation at their own valuation. Little did the Corporation realise how empty were the assurances given by their experts, but in my submission this cannot be blameworthy conduct as between responsible men. To the several complaints from the Merthyr Corporation the answer was given by the National Coal Board that experts were being used. In 1950, the Coal Board wrote to the borough engineer saying that the Board was constantly checking the position of all these tips. In fact, it blinded them with science.

Alderman Tudor, himself an important witness, who gave considerable warnings to the Coal Board, said to the Tribunal: Remember, I was a layman with limited knowledge of tips. I had raised the matter of tips in the Consultative Committee and I was compelled to accept what Mr. Wynne told me, recognising that he had far more ability than had. And I thought that he was capable enough of making a decision. If he was not capable enough of making a decision, well then, he should have called someone else in. As a layman I could not argue with him, because he could have blinded me, because he knew more of the pits and he knew more of the pit work than I did. The Coal Board blinded them all. It was deaf to all warnings, written and vocal. It was blind, also, to the visual warnings. There has been tip slips on Mynydd Merthyr, which could all have been seen by those in charge. In 1944 a rotational slip on tip 4 was followed by a flow slide; between 1947 and 1951 a rotational slip on Tip No. 5; in 1963 a rotational slide on Tip No. 7 followed by a flow slide. Between 1964 and October, 1966 there were further slipping movements on Tip No. 7. There were also the other tip slides at Tymawr and Cilfynydd, from the neighbouring valleys.

Yet something stopped these men taking action. Something stopped them concentrating on this tip about which they were constantly warned. What was it? Was it just a combination of ignorance and failure to take responsibility? Was it the pressure of other work at the pit itself and in the rest of the area? Was it the fear that, if they stopped tipping on Tip No. 7, there was very little other land to tip on and the pit itself might be in danger of closure?

The evidence of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) reflects this question, but the Tribunal, in investigating it, did not find sufficient evidence to support it. Or was it the same attitude which any of us could have taken, an attitude which exists in the minds of those who live below a volcano and which may be epitomised in just a few words—”It will never happen”?

The Tribunal just blames the National Coal Board and says that there was an absence of tipping policy and no legislation dealing with tip safety. Although the Tribunal found blame for the disaster to rest with the Coal Board, it took a long time for the Coal Board to admit it. At the beginning, its statement gave no hint of acceptance at any level of any degree of blame for the disaster. Indeed, the Board’s counsel said: The Board’s view is that the disaster was due to a coincidence of a set of geological factors, each of which in itself is not exceptional but which collectively created a particularly critical geological environment”. Those words were later shown to be false, for, on the 65th day of the hearing, the Tribunal heard Mr. Piggott, the Board’s expert, say that the only exceptional feature about Merthyr Mountain lay in the fact that it had been used as a tipping site at all. Mr. Sheppard, the Director-General of Production of the National Coal Board, said in answer to Mr. Wien, the Board’s counsel, All the geological features could have been previously appreciated”. There was, in fact, a definite and continued attempt, in the view of the Tribunal, by the Coal Board to avoid responsibility.

Lord Robens’ original statement and his evidence did not make things any easier. After he had been to Aberfan, Lord Robens told a reporter: It was impossible to know that there was a spring in the heart of this tip which was turning the centre of the mountain into sludge”. Clearly, this was inaccurate, and it was said without technical advice. The evidence which Lord Robens gave to the Tribunal later was self-contradictory and inconsistent, so much so that counsel for the N.C.B., in his closing address, said that it had not assisted the Tribunal and asked that it be disregarded.

Lord Robens was in a difficulty. He must, like anyone connected with this matter, have been in a state of mental turmoil. He made his inaccurate statement to the television reporter before he had been able to get proper advice. But, surely, he must afterwards have known what the Coal Board’s line was to be before the Tribunal, after that statement and before the Tribunal had met.

Lord Robens said in his evidence—this is recorded on page 91 of the Report —that by the time the inquiry started on 29th November he was satisfied that the causes were reasonably foreseeable. If that was so, why did the Coal Board persist in its attitude until day 65, when Mr. Piggott, the Board’s expert, finally said: All the geological features could have been previously appreciated”? This is not easy to understand. It is easy, as the Tribunal said, for anyone to be guilty of hindsight. It is easy for us to criticise and to accuse with the Report before us. But it is not easy to understand Lord Robens’ attitude from the time of the disaster to the end of the Tribunal. Blame for the disaster rests with the Coal Board. That is the Tribunal’s first finding, and, as the Secretary of State said, certain officials of the Coal Board have been moved within the Board’s organisation.

Lord Robens offered his resignation to the Minister. It was certainly the honourable thing for him to do, as head of this vast industrial empire which was blamed for the disaster by the Tribunal. The Minister has refused to accept his resignation. I ask the Minister today to say a little more about his reasons for not accepting it. The only point in the Secretary of State’s speech in which I did not fully concur was when he said that the Minister had given his reasons. The copies of the letters passing between the chairman of the National Coal Board and the Minister do not give us the reasons.

In his letter to Lord Robens rejecting his resignation, the right hon. Gentleman said: Nor do I consider that the conclusions of the Tribunal are of a kind which call for your resignation. The conclusions of the Tribunal were that the Coal Board was totally responsible for the disaster. The evidence of Lord Robens was not only late, but it was found to be useless by the Coal Board’s counsel, so much so that, as I have said, he asked for it to be disregarded. I cannot help saying to the Minister that I am sure he has further reasons for refusing Lord Robens’ resignation, and from our side we should very much like to hear them. I repeat that we are not asking that Lord Robens should resign. We want only to be told more about the Minister’s reasons.

The right hon. Gentleman may say that Lord Robens’ leadership is essential to the Coal Board in the difficulties which the industry faces, and with this we could agree. It is a complicated industry. In Wales alone, just under 60,000 men are still employed in just over 70 collieries. Lord Robens has done much to restore morale within the mining industry.

I put these questions to the Minister. How much does this huge industry decentralise? How much more will it decentralise now, since the study which, we are told, has taken place? How much responsibility did the divisions take in the past? I ask this question because, in all the evidence which was brought before the Tribunal, there was one person who was not called by counsel for the Coal Board. I find it curious that Mr. Kellett, the Chairman of the South-Western Division, was not called to give evidence regarding a pit disaster which occurred within his division. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that tonight.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh) May I be clear on the question about Mr. Kellett which the hon. Gentleman asks? Is he asking me why no one —including the Tribunal itself—called Mr. Kellett, or merely why the Coal Board’s counsel did not call him? The Tribunal could have called anyone it wished. It did not call him.

Mr. Gibson-Watt The point of my question is that one would have expected counsel for the Coal Board to call the chairman of the division. I do not understand it. If there is a reason, I am very ready to accept what the Minister may say. I should like him to give us an answer on the point.

The Coal Board, like other nationalised industries, enjoys immunity from Parliamentary control. No Member of Parliament may ask Questions in the House about the administrative matters of nationalised industries. This gives the industries, as it were, an impregnability which I am not always sure is in their own interests. In this case, it was not possible for the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to come to the House and ask the Minister concerned about the tip menace. The general public cannot understand this prohibition on Parliamentary probing. Some changes could be made. After all, Mr. Aneurin Bevan did not make that mistake with the National Health Service when he introduced it. Would it not be possible for this matter to be considered by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?

Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and, therefore, I want only shortly to say a word about the repair work which has taken place on the Aberfan complex in draining, terracing and reseeding Tip No. 7. As far as one can judge, this has been well done, and when one goes up the valley one, sees the freshly seeded grass. The Under-Secretary of State spoke the other day of the £1 million which is to be spent by the Coal Board in reshaping the tips on Merthyr Mountain, with reseeding and planting of fair-sized trees. It remains to be seen whether this will be adequate. Fair-sized trees do not grow easily, particularly in coal tips, and the job should be done by experts.

I have no doubt that it will be, but it is not clear that Tips Nos. 4 and 5 are to be included in the landscaping. The Minister has the advantage of me, for he has seen the model and I have not. But we cannot accept any excuse that Tip No. 5 is still burning and, therefore, cannot be removed. That should be made very plain to those who are clearing up that part of Merthyr Mountain. It was stated in the Tribunal, by one of the Coal Board experts, that One may conclude that No. 5 has been standing and is standing at a very low factor of safety. Therefore, we shall need a good deal of convincing that adequate work is being done.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been a good deal of Press and television coverage of the whole affair. Whatever people’s reactions to some of it may have been, it should at least remind every one of us of the debt the country as a whole owes to the mining communities and the country’s responsibility to see that the existing tips are safe, and that the lives of those living in the valleys shall not only be safer but shall be made less drab by reshaping, reseeding and re-afforestation.

It is only when one lives there or goes there that one realises that in South Wales there are not hundreds but thousands of coal tips. The real difficulty here, unlike other coal-mining areas, is that there is practically nowhere to put the tips except on the slope at the side of the valley. It is immaterial whether the slipping tip is now the property of the Coal Board or not. A number of small though potentially dangerous slips have taken place in the past few months, and throughout periods of heavy rain, such as we had recently, there is a great deal of anxiety about them.

The Secretary of State has announced that grants of between 85 and 95 per cent. will be available to local authorities under the 1966 Industrial Development Act. I do not believe that that goes quite far enough. Any local authority which is tackling a scheme of any size—say, of £250,000—and which is asked to provide 10 per cent. of the money to do the repairing and reshaping will have to find a large amount from the local ratepayers. It will probably be dealing with a coal tip that was put there some years ago and in many cases might be just a relic of a bygone economic age. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider this and perhaps be even more generous to the local authorities than they have been so far.

I have no doubt that the disaster at Aberfan has taught a terrible lesson to the Coal Board, and no doubt it has made certain reorganisations. But the disaster has also brought home to us the lesson that there are many tips that need remedial action in order to relieve anxiety.

I do not wish to say anything in detail about the disaster fund. When he winds up, will the Minister tell us how the fund, totalling nearly £2 million, has been administered, and what is the up-to-date position?

I have put a number of questions to the Minister. First, will he give us the reasons why he did not accept Lord Roben’s resignation? Second, will he say why the Chairman of the South Western Division did not give evidence at the Tribunal? Third, will he consult his colleagues about changing the rules which prevent hon. Members from asking Questions about nationalised industries in the House? Fourth, will he ensure that the Coal Board adequately reshapes the tips at Aberfan? Fifth, will the Government be more generous to local authorities? Finally, will he tell us more about the disaster fund?

Having put those questions to the Minister, I conclude by saying to all who have suffered at Aberfan. “We wish you strength and faith to overcome your grief.”

October 4, 2022
Cledwyn Hughes – 1967 Statement on Aberfan Inquiry

The statement made by Cledwyn Hughes, the then Secretary of State for Wales, in the House of Commons on 26 October 1967.

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 to inquire into the disaster at Aberfan (House of Commons Paper No. 553). Just over a year ago this House and the whole world was shocked to learn of the dreadful tragedy which had occurred at Aberfan, a small mining village near Merthyr Tydfil. Hundreds of thousands of tons of colliery waste suddenly moved down the steep mountainside and overwhelmed a large part of the junior school and a number of houses in the vicinity. Desperate efforts at rescue were made by those nearby, who were joined by others who poured into Aberfan from all over South Wales and beyond, but no one was taken out of the ruins alive later than two hours after the first movement of the tip, and a hundred and forty four persons, the majority of them young children, lost their lives.

As soon as news of the tragedy reached me I went immediately to Aberfan to see whether I could be of use. After seeing the site my first concern was to clarify the division of responsibility for the work that was going on. The Chief Constable of Merthyr had been placed in overall operational charge, and I confirmed this. The National Coal Board was asked to concentrate on the stabilisation of the tip, and the local authority was asked to take full responsibility for all the rescue work. The other local authorities, who had so readily and promptly come to help, willingly accepted my invitation to put their resources temporarily under the control of the officials of the Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council.

Later that evening I was joined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it clear that the whole of the resources of the Government were at my disposal for the rescue operation. Other colleagues in the Government also came to the site.

I have already in this House thanked all those who took part in the rescue operation for the splendid work which they performed in the most harrowing circumstances.

No time was lost in setting up a Tribunal of Inquiry into all the circumstances of the disaster and we were fortunate to secure the services as Chairman of Lord Justice Edmund Davies, a Welshman born and bred in a neighbouring valley and renowned for his distinction as a lawyer and for his humanitarian sympathy, and as members of the Tribunal with him, Mr. Harold Harding, the eminent civil engineer, and Mr. Vernon Lawrence, the greatly respected former Clerk to the Monmouthshire County Council.

Lord Justice Edmund Davies promptly visited the scene of the disaster and arrangements were quickly made for the Tribunal to sit at Merthyr Tydfil and a preliminary meeting was held on 8th November. The proceedings were opened on 29th November by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and so began what was to prove the longest inquiry of its kind in British legal history.

Written statements were taken by the Treasury Solicitor from all who wished to give evidence, about 250 witnesses in all, and of these 136 gave oral evidence also, being examined and cross-examined by counsel and questioned by members of the Tribunal. Including the preliminary meeting the Tribunal sat in public for 77 days, first at Merthyr Tydfil and later at Cardiff, and commanded, I believe, universal admiration for their patience and thoroughness in elucidating the facts. The Tribunal finally rose at the end of April and the members then addressed themselves to the massive task of sifting the evidence and drawing up their report and recommendations.

As the House knows, the Chairman placed a copy of the Tribunal’s Report in my hands in the latter half of July and it was printed by order of the House and published on 3rd August. It is not my intention to go through the Report, but I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that I should express our admiration for the high sense of duty with which the Tribunal applied itself to its most onerous task and our gratitude for its findings and for its recommendations on the measures needed to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster. These findings and recommendations, as has been made clear already, have commanded general acceptance by Her Majesty’s Government. We are all much indebted to Lord Justice Edmund Davies and his colleagues who have performed a great public service.

Before I come to action taken on receipt of the Report, I should like to say a word or two about action taken during, and even before, the sittings of the Tribunal. Immediately after the disaster the National Coal Board ordered an inspection of all tips, active or disused, in the Board’s ownership and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and I invited local authorities in England and Wales, invoking the assistance of the National Coal Board as necessary, to arrange for an inspection of all tips in private ownership. These measures disclosed potential instability in several tips and appropriate precautions were taken and remedial action put in hand at once.

The incidents which occurred during the heavy rains of last week, however, although relatively minor in character, demonstrated that some tips can still present problems and that much remains to be done. As hon. Members will hear from my right hon. Friend who hopes to wind up this debate, the efforts of the National Coal Board, the Government, and all concerned, are being directed to ensure that all problems, both large and small, can be foreseen and promptly dealt with.

One of the results of the disaster at Aberfan was to give a new stimulus also to the effort to clear up the land left derelict by industrial processes of the past, a problem of which everyone has long been uncomfortably aware, especially in the mining valleys of South Wales. The objective of this effort is not only to reclaim land now useless so that it may be available for industry or housing or other beneficial use, but also to make these areas more attractive to incoming industry and for those who live in them. To pursue this objective more effectively, shortly after the disaster I set up in the Welsh Office in Cardiff a Derelict Land Unit to work closely with the local authorities in preparing schemes of rehabilitation and getting them carried out.

With the co-operation of the Board of Trade, progress has already been made to an extent which is, I think, most encouraging. So far, the unit has had discussions with 60 local authorities and has visited 115 derelict sites, covering approximately 2,650 acres, in 42 of these local authority areas. The unit has been asked to help by preparing outline proposals for 48 sites, covering about 1,000 acres, and has prepared such proposals for 10 of these sites and is at present engaged on preparing them for others.

The first stage of one large tip scheme has been completed and work on others is well under way—for example, work on the huge Lewis Merthyr tip in the Rhondda, being done in conjunction with a coal recovery operation. Achievement of the objective inevitably takes a very long time. One cannot heal in a day the scars of great wounds made over generations. It is a task of great magnitude. But during this past year much more work has been done or started than in the whole of the preceding five years—and the way has been prepared for a much accelerated rate of progress in the future.

The National Coal Board has also changed its basic structure and now has three levels of authority instead of the former five. This change, which was in hand before Aberfan for other reasons, should go a long way to reducing the difficulties of communication to which the Tribunal drew attention. This reorganisation took effect from the beginning of April this year. The Board’s civil engineering organisation has also been strengthened and a post of area civil engineer has been created in each area. The many detailed measures which the Board has taken to improve its organisation and avoid blurring of responsibilities are summarised in a note which has been made available in the Vote Office by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Now to return to the Report. The oral evidence tendered to the Tribunal was recorded in a daily transcript which was made available to all the parties appearing before the Tribunal, and of course, to the Tribunal members. Copies of the written evidence received a similar circulation so far as the number of copies available permitted. The Tribunal, in its Report, quotes freely from both the oral and the written evidence and the Report promised the publication of the papers recording the results of the investigations carried out, in view of their scientific interest and importance.

Arrangements for the publication of this material are well forward, but I must tell the House that the volume is unlikely to appear before next Easter. The reason for this is that it is necessary to redraw, so as to render them suitable for printing, the large number of maps, diagrams and drawings which accompany the text. To publish the text alone would be simpler, but useless, as much of it is a commentary on the illustrations drawings and diagrams. The work is going ahead with all speed and I am told that those who are familiar with the processes of printing scientific documents will be well satisfied if the date I have mentioned can in fact be met.

Now I come to the Tribunal’s lessons and recommendations and the action which is being taken, or has already been taken, to implement them. Some, as the Tribunal pointed out, require legislation and this is being prepared with a view to its being introduced next Session.

One of the Questions to be considered is what should be done about the remaining tips at Aberfan. I say “remaining tips” because, during the course of the very extensive work which has been done by the National Coal Board since the disaster, to ensure safety, the rest of the disaster tip has virtually disappeared, and the area of hillside over which it slipped has been cleaned up and covered with a new growth of grass.

In the spring of this year, the National Coal Board commissioned a landscape consultant, who has lived 20 years in Wales, to prepare a scheme taking into account all the considerations. This scheme, illustrated by a large scale model, was explained to representatives of the Aberfan Parents and Residents’ Association, accompanied by their expert advisers, and to representatives and officials of the Merthyr Tydfil Corporation, at a meeting in the Welsh Office a week ago, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. The model is now on display in the village of Aberfan.

This scheme incorporates all the further safety measures proposed by all the expert advisers who gave evidence before the Tribunal. Apart from these further safety measures, the proposals involve reducing the height of the tips, smoothing the contours, and sowing and planting the whole area below the area of burning tip material with grass, gorse, broom and a variety of trees, including some fairly large transplanted trees.

I understand that the preliminary civil engineering works—that is to say, the further drainage measures, the removal and redisposition of substantial quantities of tip material, and the terracing—can be completed in about a year. If a beginning is made soon, perhaps all and certainly the greatest part of the sowing and planting can then be done in the planting season of the winter of 1968–69; and, by the spring of 1969, not only would the whole of the tips complex be greatly altered in outline, but also the whole of the area below the burning tips would be green.

Most of the Tribunal’s recommendations are of general application. First of all, the Tribunal stated that tips should all be regarded as potentially dangerous, although the Tribunal recognises that the dangers mainly arise with active working tips; secondly, tips should all be treated as engineering structures and, therefore, the procedures of preliminary site investigation and subsequent control customary in other branches of civil engineering should be applied. These two propositions are accepted by the National Coal Board and are already being acted on. I commend them to all who are in any way concerned with spoil heaps, whether connected with the coal industry or not.

I have already mentioned the new structure of the National Coal Board, which will improve, among other things, the state of internal communications. The observations of the Tribunal upon this aspect are not, I am sure, unheeded by many—and I am not now referring only to the coal industry—who have had occasion to consider how their own conduct would have stood up to a similar searching inquiry. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that there is a lesson here for us all, for everybody engaged in any enterprise where more than a handful of people are involved.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power proposes to appoint a National Tip Safety Committee to advise him, and perhaps other Ministers, also, on problems affecting the stability of tips. Discussions are now going on as to the terms of reference such a Committee might have and I hope to see it constituted in the very near future. The Committee, when set up, will be asked as one of its first tasks to consider a standard code of practice.

The Tribunal’s recommendations which require legislation fall mainly within the field of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who will be replying to this debate on behalf of the Government, though there is one matter affecting local authorities which is in the field of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and myself.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is preparing legislation to amend the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, so as to give effect to those of the Tribunal’s recommendations which require new legislation. He will give the House details of his proposals and the House may take it that they will be comprehensive. Broadly speaking, the Ministry of Power and the Mines Inspectorate will be given the additional powers and duties recommended by the Tribunal and tips forming part of active mines and quarries will be regularly inspected by persons competent to judge their stability.

I should like myself to say something about the powers and responsibilities of local authorities, although details will need to be worked out in consultation with local authority associations. If any local authority has any reason to fear that a working tip presents a hazard, it should at once inform the Ministry of Power or the local Inspector of Mines. The Ministry will immediately make an investigation and, if need be, require the owner to carry out tests or remedial work. If the local authority is still not satisfied, the matter can be referred to an independent arbiter, who will be empowered to order further work to be done.

In the case of a disused tip which gives cause for anxiety, a local authority should also get in touch with the Ministry and obtain the advice of the Mines Inspectorate. In the light of this advice, the local authority could decide whether there was a prima facie case of instability. The authority would be empowered to require the owner to carry out specified tests and to furnish a report and also to carry out specified remedial work. The local authority would also have default powers to carry out tests or do the works themselves or appoint contractors to do so. If the owner objected to any test or remedial work, he could appeal to the Minister of Power.

These proposed arrangements should go far to ensure that local authorities are fully empowered to protect the inhabitants of their area—a protection which, as the Tribunal pointed out, it is every citizen’s right to expect.

Besides safety, there is the question of the general appearance of working tips. The local planning authorities are able to control this by imposing conditions when they grant planning permission. This applies both to tipping operations and also to the recovery of material from disused tips.

I now turn to a subject on which the Tribunal very properly made no recommendation, though no small part of its Report was concerned with it, namely, the responsibility of individuals for the disaster and the strictures passed on other individuals whose conduct was censured by the Tribunal. This aspect of the Report has received long and anxious consideration by the Government, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and by the National Coal Board. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed by the Report did not justify the institution of criminal proceedings. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power did not accept the offered resignation of the Chairman of the National Coal Board and made known his reasons for asking Lord Robens to continue in office. Those individuals named in the Report who are still in the service of the National Coal Board have been moved to other work.

In paragraph 210 of the Report the Tribunal referred to “the vastly disagreeable task of censure” which the sense of public duty of its members obliged it to carry out. In a moving passage in paragraph 207, the Tribunal expressed its belief that Whether or not named or adversely referred to in this Report, there must be many today with hearts made heavy and haunted by the thought that if only they had done this, that or the other the disaster might have been averted. Of these, some will blame themselves needlessly; others, while blameworthy in some degree, will condemn themselves with excessive harshness; yet others must carry the heavy burden of knowing that their neglect played an unmistakeable part in bringing about the tragedy. There, in my view, the matter ought now to be allowed to rest.

Finally, I should like to speak of the village of Aberfan as it is today. A sad anniversary has just passed and renewed the poignancy of grief for those who lost loved ones. But life must go on, and Aberfan is bravely facing the task of physical reconstruction and its families the no less difficult task of restoring mental tranquillity. Thanks to the wonderfully generous response of the public to the appeal for the Aberfan Fund, the resources are not lacking. But if the inhabitants are to find peace, they need a period away from the glare of publicity to which they have been exposed for so long. I appeal to everyone to give them the quiet they need to bear their burden of grief and to rebuild their shattered lives.

October 4, 2022
Emlyn Hooson – 1966 Comments on Aberfan

The comments made by Emlyn Hooson, the then Liberal MP for Montgomeryshire, in the House of Commons on 24 October 1966.

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 4, 2022
Kay Andrews – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baroness Andrews)

The tribute made by Kay Andrews, Baroness Andrews, in the House of Lords on 10 September 2022.

My Lords, it has never been a greater privilege to be a part of this House and listen to some extraordinary speeches; they will last as long as this House does, I think. With humility, I want to share some of my own experiences.

Last night, when we heard that extraordinarily magisterial and immensely moving speech from the new King, King Charles III, he made us remember some different aspects of our late Queen. He spoke of

“a promise of destiny kept”

and renewed that same promise of lifelong service. Of course, one of those promises that the Queen made was the one she made to the people of Aberfan, after the disaster in 1966 when 116 children and 28 adults died, that she would return. It was one of the defining moments of her reign and was not without controversy. For those of us who come from those valleys, it marked an extraordinary relationship. At that terrible time, the people of Aberfan were immensely and uniquely comforted by her. She was deeply affected; she sat quietly with them, sometimes quite silently.

One of the bereaved families said, “She was with us from the beginning”, and she more than kept her promise to return. She went back four times, once to open the new school. She understood and paid tribute to the dignity and the indomitable spirit that characterises the people of that village and the surrounding valleys, and that rare gift exemplified so much of what made her so special to everyone she met. She understood grief. She had been brought up never to show her emotions, but she knew what people felt, and people knew that she knew. She knew that silence is more eloquent than words and she taught us that there is a unique value in silence.

She also had a terrific zest for life. I experienced that because I am a member of the trade union of previous Baronesses in Waiting. She treated us with enormous respect and helped us understand the role. The humility in being present to greet a distinguished overseas Head of State who is expecting to meet the Queen and finds himself instead meeting an overenthusiastic and completely unknown Baroness is something you never quite forget. It teaches you a life lesson about expectations.

Her Majesty honoured her promises and the sweep of history in so many other ways. One of the charities with which she had the longest association was the Charterhouse, the great medieval charity in the City so well known to Members of this House—there are many of its previous governors in this House. The Charterhouse has stood for 400 years as a symbol of philanthropy, one of the four buildings in London that Elizabeth I would recognise. There have been royal governors for 400 years. Elizabeth I made her base there after the death of Mary. For 400 years, Thomas Sutton’s will has been honoured in the community of elderly men and women who live out their final days there. I am privileged to be a governor and to have that duty of care now.

The late Queen’s first visit was in 1958, after the restoration following the Blitz. Her final visit, some 60 years later in 2017, was to open our new museum, which revealed the Charterhouse in its full 700-year history. Like every governor, she would have had three brothers in her care. She caused some confusion occasionally by referring to them. Yesterday, our brothers honoured her and the love they feel for her when they tolled the Charterhouse bell 96 times for their royal governor, who joined hands over the centuries with that other great Elizabeth, 400 years ago. I have an image of those two Elizabeths sitting in the great chamber at the Charterhouse, conspiring together about how to get the best from their councillors.

She also honoured her people in other ways. During her 60th Jubilee, in 2012, the first excursion that she made was to Burnley, on a freezing day. She travelled up the canal on the “Pride of Sefton”, with Prince Philip and the then Prince Charles, to see the transformation of Burnley mill into a new centre of technical education. It was one of many such projects to which our present King was committed for so long and with such success, and it enabled us at the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to bring back to life and to repurpose significant historic buildings which could bring new life to communities such as Burnley. The mill was put to work again, for another generation to learn how to master the future.

That day, in that mill, on the threshold of its new life, the Queen spoke of her immense pride in all that her son had achieved, not just in the restoration of our physical heritage but in empowering so many young people, through the Prince’s Trust, to find the confidence and success to make their own place in history.

It is no wonder that we have all felt so completely overwhelmed by hearing the accounts of people we have met, or those people I saw at Victoria Station this morning armed with bunches of flowers and on their way to Buckingham Palace. We are unmoored by the death of a Queen for whom duty was her signature on a page of history, as well as her love. We now have a new King who shares her values and who will, as he said last night, bring loyalty and love, warmth and empathy in connection. We are extremely lucky to have lived in her reign, and we will be lucky to live in his.

God save the King.

October 4, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : When we challenge discrimination and progress gender equality, everybody benefits – UK statement at UN Third Committee [October 2022]

The press release issued by the Foreign Office on 4 October 2022.

Statement by Richard Croker, UK Ambassador to the General Assembly, at the Third Committee meeting on advancement of women.

Thank you Mr Chair,

Multiple and interconnected barriers are preventing women and girls from reaching their full potential. Where women and girls are unable to reach their potential, whole countries suffer. We know that when we challenge discrimination and progress gender equality, everybody benefits.

The UK is committed to protecting and promoting women and girls’ rights and freedoms at home and abroad so that they can have their voice, choice and control over all aspects of their lives.

Women’s rights are human rights, as enshrined by numerous conventions that the UK supports. Our ambition remains higher than ever, and we cannot be complacent when reviewing our progress.

That is why we have committed to placing women and girls at the heart of our foreign and development policy, prioritising action on 3 areas: Educating girls; Empowering women and girls; and Ending violence.

We know that achieving gender equality is fundamental to building democracies and accelerating progress on securing freedoms, prosperity and trade, as well as strengthening global security and resilience. Women’s knowledge and leadership strengthens decision-making, driving better, more sustainable, and fairer policies that benefit whole communities.

Together, over many years, we have made real, hard-won progress on this agenda. There are more girls in school; fewer girls forced into early marriage; more women serving in high political offices and private sector leadership positions; and there have been encouraging legal reforms in many countries to address inequalities.

However, progress has stalled. At the current rate, it will take 135 years to close the gender gap worldwide. Women and girls are, and continue to be, disproportionately impacted by crises, be it the COVID pandemic, conflict, or climate change.

Take COVID as an example. At a global level, we have witnessed women shouldering the unpaid care burden and being hardest hit economically, deepening poverty for women and girls. There has been a global surge in gender-based violence, reduced access to sexual and reproductive health and rights; and increases in child marriage and adolescent pregnancy. An estimated 20 million girls will never return to school because of COVID.

Recent months have also shown the deep resilience of the human spirit and of free societies, with women and girls on the frontline of and being affected by multiple brutal conflicts, including most recently due to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Increasing authoritarianism is undermining democratic values, human rights and effective institutions and placing these hard-won gains under threat. Systematic attempts by several actors to roll back and reverse women’s and girls’ rights have gained momentum at the international and community level.

In Afghanistan, twenty years of progress on women’s rights have been reversed. Afghan girls have been largely banned from secondary school for over a year, the only country in the world where this is the case.
In Iran, the death of Mahsa Amini is a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women. No one should face violence because of what they wear, how they practice their beliefs or any expression of fundamental rights.

The UK stands steadfast in its commitment to protect and promote women’s and girls’ rights. In particular, we must respect the bodily autonomy of women and girls throughout their lives by supporting them in exercising their sexual and reproductive rights, preventing all forms of gender-based violence and eliminating harmful practices including female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage.

The UK has a long record of leading the charge against gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence. This November, the UK will host a major international conference to promote prevention, justice and support for survivors, and strengthening the global response.

Mr Chair,

We are prepared to do things differently, to think differently, and to work differently to achieve true gender equality. We must act across multiple sectors and disciplines simultaneously and tackle the many forms of disadvantage that women and girls face, spanning age, race, disability, economic status, gender identity, religion/belief and geographical location.

And we cannot do this alone. We will continue to work with our partners, including women’s rights organisations who are at the frontlines of this work, to deliver for women and girls everywhere.

I thank you.

October 4, 2022
John Alderdice – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II (Baron Alderdice)

The tribute made by John Alderdice, Baron Alderdice, in the House of Lords on 10 September 2022.

My Lords, it is a truism of politics generally—and, no doubt, of your Lordships’ House—that it is easier to make a long speech than a short one. In respect of Her late Majesty, all of us could speak at length with enthusiasm, passion and not a little sadness about our experiences of her, both closely and at a distance. I will restrict myself to two comments about not the personal relationship with her but what she achieved and represented. One is about international relations, which are an important matter for me. The other is about the Irish peace process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, just referred.

When Her Majesty came to the Throne, after two World Wars, there was a huge focus on creating an international rules-based order. There was a particular focus on the United Nations. For a long time, that was and continued to be an inspiring hope—perhaps until relatively recent times—because the United Nations Security Council is and was to be the pinnacle of international law. Now we find that two of its permanent members are, by any account, guilty of crimes against humanity. Were that to be the case of any of the members of our Supreme Court, we would lose faith in that jurisdiction.

Others of Her Majesty’s Ministers focused a great deal on getting us into the European project or, more latterly, getting us out of it. But she had a different focus during all those years. She was supportive of what her Governments were doing, of course, but it was the Commonwealth that was her particular passion, as the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, rightly said. It is my conviction that, had it not been for her passionate commitment and that of the rest of the Royal Family, we probably would not have a Commonwealth today. Instead, we have an important network of relationships that some countries that were not even members of the British Empire have applied to join.

Yesterday, I got off a plane to hear of Her Majesty’s death after a visit to Singapore at the invitation of the Singaporean Government. I have often found myself being critical of them. It seemed to me that they were not living up to some of the principles I felt were important. I came back, however, with a different set of feelings. They understand China in a way that we do not. They have a fellow feeling with India that we cannot have. They understand Asia and the West. If we are not to fall into a terrible war with China and others in the East, we desperately need that depth of understanding. It is an understanding that Her late Majesty the Queen had very deeply.

I speak of the Irish peace process. In her Golden Jubilee year, 2002, Her Majesty visited not just the Parliament here but the Senedd in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. I was advised by the Northern Ireland Office, however, that she would not be visiting the Northern Ireland Assembly of which I was Speaker because the Northern Ireland Office felt that it would cause difficulties. I said, “I see. You’re wanting to create a constitutional crisis.” “Oh no,” they said, “We’re trying to avoid trouble.” I said, “Well, how do you think unionists will respond if Her Majesty can go to every other Parliament but not to Stormont?” They said, “But it won’t go well.” I replied, “Just back off for a little while and give me a chance to talk to those involved.”

I talked to Dr Paisley, who was very wroth because he was convinced that it would not be possible. I talked to others. Eventually, I talked to Alex Maskey, the then Chief Whip of Sinn Féin. I said, “Alex, you know, I want to be able to invite the Irish President here but I cannot invite her if Her Majesty cannot come.” “Ah,” he said, “We’ll have a chat about it.” So the ard chomhairle of Sinn Féin got together. You can imagine them speaking in Dublin about Her Majesty’s visit to Belfast. They came back to me, and the answer was clear: “We will deal with it with a dignified detachment. We won’t be able to be there but we won’t create trouble.”

On the morning of Her Majesty’s visit, Gerry Kelly was interviewed on the BBC. My first response was a sinking heart. What would Gerry say? He was asked whether he would meet her. He said, “Well, if she’s going to hand the place over, I’d be very happy to meet with her, but I don’t expect that’s what she’s coming for. So we will deal with it with a dignified detachment.” Of course, that is what happened; they dealt with it appropriately.

We went on to have the remarkable visit to Dublin and the meeting with Mary McAleese. Then, in 2012, we had the visit to Belfast where Her Majesty shook hands with Martin McGuinness. In 2002, it was dignified detachment. In 2012, it was dignified engagement. None of that would have happened had she not, by her whole life, person and example, demonstrated dignity in relations and respect for and mutual recognition of those with whom she and her country disagreed. She was a remarkable person. She has given those of us in my part of the United Kingdom a remarkable legacy, but we are fortunate because King Charles III is also part of her legacy. God save the King.

October 4, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : President of Ukraine had a phone call with the Prime Minister of India [October 2022]

The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 4 October 2022.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a phone call with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi.

During the conversation, the Head of State emphasized the importance of strengthening the Ukrainian-Indian partnership against the backdrop of Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The holding of the so-called referenda by Russia in the temporarily occupied territories of our country was also discussed. The President noted that all the aggressor’s decisions aimed at attempting illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories are null and void and do not change reality.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasized that under such conditions, Ukraine will not conduct any negotiations with the current President of the Russian Federation, and noted that our state has always been committed to a peaceful settlement through dialogue.

“However, Russia did not stand for dialogue and put forward ultimata instead deliberately undermining this process. During my speech at the session of the UN General Assembly, I outlined our clear formula for peace. We are ready to work together with our partners to achieve it,” added the President of Ukraine.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Narendra Modi for India’s support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and also emphasized the importance of the Indian leader’s recent statement that now is not the time for war.

The Head of State noted the significant humanitarian aid provided by the government and the private sector of the Republic of India to Ukraine.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Narendra Modi separately discussed the issue of global food security. The President of Ukraine emphasized that our state is ready to continue acting as a guarantor of the world’s food security. In this regard, the support of the entire international community, in particular India, for the further implementation of the grain initiative is important.

The interlocutors paid due attention to the issue of nuclear safety.

“Nuclear blackmail by Russia, in particular regarding the Zaporizhzhia NPP, is a threat not only to Ukraine, but also to the whole world,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

Separately, the President of Ukraine and the Prime Minister of India discussed cooperation within international organizations, primarily the UN.

During the conversation, the parties noted mutual interest in deepening regular full-scale Ukrainian-Indian contacts, as well as implementation of tasks on the agenda of bilateral relations of comprehensive partnership.

The Head of State renewed the invitation to the Prime Minister of the Republic of India to visit Ukraine.

October 4, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Andriy Yermak met with the President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda [October 2022]

The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 3 October 2022.

During his stay in Warsaw, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak met with President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda.

Andriy Yermak noted that Ukraine highly appreciates everything that Poland has done and is doing so that our country can endure and win a full-scale war with Russia.

The Head of the President’s Office thanked Andrzej Duda for his steadfast support of our country and condemnation of the new attempt to annex the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine by Russia.

Andriy Yermak emphasized that the sham referenda held by the Russian Federation are worthless and do not change reality.

“Ukraine will return what’s ours. The territorial integrity of Ukraine will be restored,” he emphasized.

The interlocutors discussed further steps of the international community in response to Russia’s recent attempt to annex the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. The Head of the President’s Office emphasized that such steps should involve complete international isolation of Russia, strengthening of global sanctions, designation of the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism, further defense and macro-financial support for our country.

Andriy Yermak and Andrzej Duda also discussed the interaction of Ukraine and Poland within NATO, in particular in the context of Ukraine’s application for membership in the Alliance.

“We rely on Poland’s proactive support in the issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the provision of international security guarantees to our state,” said the Head of the President’s Office.

In this regard, Andriy Yermak separately emphasized the recommendations prepared by the International Working Group on Security Guarantees for Ukraine concerning the Kyiv Security Compact, the implementation of which the Ukrainian side will work together with partners.

The interlocutors discussed the continuation of security aid to the Ukrainian army, as well as the urgent needs of the defense forces of Ukraine.

In addition, the Head of the President’s Office emphasized the importance of prompt provision of defense support and its strengthening.

Special attention was paid during the conversation to the issues of energy security and bilateral cooperation in the energy sector.

The parties exchanged views on current issues of bilateral relations. Andriy Yermak positively assessed the progress achieved in increasing the capacity of checkpoints on the Ukrainian-Polish border and noted the importance of introducing joint border and customs control at all checkpoints.

The Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine also thanked Andrzej Duda for being awarded the high state award of the Republic of Poland – the Grand Cross of Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland.

“It is a great honor for me to receive this high award. I consider it as an award for the entire Ukrainian people,” emphasized Andriy Yermak.

October 4, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Pursuant to the instruction of the President, Andriy Yermak presented the Gold Star Orders to five defenders of Azovstal, who were awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine [October 2022]

The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 3 October 2022.

During a visit to Turkey, Head of the Office of the President Andriy Yermak, pursuant to the instructions of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, presented the Gold Star Orders to five servicemen – defenders of Mariupol and Azovstal, who were awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine.

The President awarded the highest state award to commander of the “Azov” separate special purpose regiment of the National Guard Denys Prokopenko (call sign Redis), his deputy Svyatoslav Palamar, acting commander of the 36th separate brigade of marines Serhiy Volynskyi (call sign – Volyna), senior officer of “Azov” Oleg Khomenko and commander of the 12th brigade of the National Guard Denys Shlega.

The awarding ceremony took place during the meeting of Andriy Yermak and First Lady Olena Zelenska with Azovstal defenders and members of their families in Türkiye.

“The units you led made an invaluable contribution to the future victory of Ukraine. You and your subordinates managed to bind the enormous forces of the enemy. Forces that were lacking for the occupation of larger territories,” said Andriy Yermak, presenting the order to Denys Prokopenko.

The Head of the Office of the President emphasized that the defenders of “Azovstal” saved many lives in those territories that the enemy did not reach.

“You won time, and this time was not wasted. And now we are returning our territories and our people. Ukraine will be free and united,” he said.

During the meeting, a video call by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy was held. The Head of State congratulated the servicemen and thanked them for performing an important combat mission on the defense of Mariupol.

“We are all proud of you. And I am extremely happy that your relatives are with you, I am happy that we have you. You are not just heroes, you are living heroes, and that is very important. I thank each and every one of you. And we will do everything to return your brothers-in-arms who are now in captivity. I am proud that we live in the same country, fight for it together and will definitely win. Glory to Ukraine!” said the Head of State.

“The battle for Mariupol and everything that happened to us, the release from captivity, is a Ukrainian miracle in spite of everything. Everyone perfectly understands what would have happened to us. There are people here who know what Russian torture and Russian captivity is. And this award is the award of our warriors. This is the award of our Ukrainian people. I am very proud to be Ukrainian. This is the coolest nation in the world! And the coolest government and the coolest military,” said Svyatoslav Palamar, deputy commander of the Azov National Guard regiment.

Olena Zelenska also congratulated the warriors on behalf of all Ukrainian citizens whom they protected and presented valuable gifts.

The President’s wife conveyed to the defenders and their families a blessing from His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, whom she met the day before in Istanbul.

“The main thing is that Ukraine fights and will fight for all our people. There are still many of them in Russian captivity – men and women, military and civilians. And we need each and every one. Alive,” said the First Lady.

The defenders of “Azovstal” asked to hand over to Volodymyr Zelenskyy the flag of Ukraine with the signatures and wishes of five commanders and the motto “There is no glory without a fight.”

October 4, 2022