UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2017 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2017 Christmas Broadcast

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Christmas Broadcast which was shown on 25 December 2017.

    Sixty years ago today, I spoke about the speed of technological change, in what was my first televised Christmas broadcast. At the time, it felt like a landmark.

    Television has made it possible for many of you to see me in your homes on Christmas Day. My own family often gather round to watch television as they are at this moment, and that is how I imagine you now.

    Six decades on, the presenter of that broadcast has ‘evolved’ somewhat, as has the technology she described. Back then, who could have imagined that people would one day be following this Christmas message on laptops and mobile phones? But I’m also struck by something that hasn’t changed. That, whatever the technology, many of you will be watching or listening to this at home.

    We think of our homes as places of warmth, familiarity and love; of shared stories and memories, which is perhaps why at this time of year so many return to where they grew up. There is a timeless simplicity to the pull of home.

    For many, the idea of “home” reaches beyond a physical building – to a home town or city. This Christmas, I think of London and Manchester, whose powerful identities shone through over the past twelve months in the face of appalling attacks. In Manchester, those targeted included children who had gone to see their favourite singer. A few days after the bombing, I had the privilege of meeting some of the young survivors and their parents.

    I describe that hospital visit as a “privilege” because the patients I met were an example to us all, showing extraordinary bravery and resilience. Indeed, many of those who survived the attack came together just days later for a benefit concert. It was a powerful reclaiming of the ground, and of the city those young people call home.

    We expect our homes to be a place of safety – “sanctuary” even – which makes it all the more shocking when the comfort they provide is shattered. A few weeks ago, The Prince of Wales visited the Caribbean in the aftermath of hurricanes that destroyed entire communities. And here in London, who can forget the sheer awfulness of the Grenfell Tower fire?

    Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who died and those who lost so much; and we are indebted to members of the emergency services who risked their own lives, this past year, saving others. Many of them, of course, will not be at home today because they are working, to protect us.

    Reflecting on these events makes me grateful for the blessings of home and family, and in particular for 70 years of marriage. I don’t know that anyone had invented the term “platinum” for a 70th wedding anniversary when I was born. You weren’t expected to be around that long. Even Prince Philip has decided it’s time to slow down a little – having, as he economically put it, “done his bit”. But I know his support and unique sense of humour will remain as strong as ever, as we enjoy spending time this Christmas with our family and look forward to welcoming new members into it next year.

    In 2018 I will open my home to a different type of family: the leaders of the fifty-two nations of the Commonwealth, as they gather in the UK for a summit. The Commonwealth has an inspiring way of bringing people together, be it through the Commonwealth Games – which begins in a few months’ time on Australia’s Gold Coast – or through bodies like the Commonwealth Youth Orchestra & Choir: a reminder of how truly vibrant this international family is.

    Today we celebrate Christmas, which itself is sometimes described as a festival of the home. Families travel long distances to be together. Volunteers and charities, as well as many churches, arrange meals for the homeless and those who would otherwise be alone on Christmas Day. We remember the birth of Jesus Christ whose only sanctuary was a stable in Bethlehem. He knew rejection, hardship and persecution; and yet it is Jesus Christ’s generous love and example which has inspired me through good times and bad.

    Whatever your own experiences this year; wherever and however you are watching or listening, I wish you a peaceful and very happy Christmas.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2018 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2018 Christmas Broadcast

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Christmas Broadcast which was shown on 25 December 2018.

    For many, the service of Nine Lessons and Carols from King’s College, Cambridge, is when Christmas begins. Listened to by millions of people around the world, it starts with a chorister singing the first verse of Once in Royal David’s City.

    The priest who introduced this service to King’s College chapel, exactly one hundred years ago, was Eric Milner-White. He had served as a military chaplain in the First World War. Just six weeks after the Armistice, he wanted a new kind of service which – with its message of peace and goodwill – spoke to the needs of the times.

    2018 has been a year of centenaries. The Royal Air Force celebrated its 100th anniversary with a memorable fly-past demonstrating a thrilling unity of purpose and execution. We owe them and all our Armed Services our deepest gratitude.

    My father served in the Royal Navy during the First World War. He was a midshipman in HMS Collingwood at the Battle of Jutland in 1916. The British fleet lost 14 ships and 6,000 men in that engagement. My father wrote in a letter: “How and why we were not hit beats me”. Like others, he lost friends in the war. At Christmas, we become keenly aware of loved ones who have died, whatever the circumstances. But of course, we would not grieve if we did not love.

    Closer to home, it’s been a busy year for my family, with two weddings and two babies – and another child expected soon. It helps to keep a grandmother well occupied. We have had other celebrations too, including the 70th birthday of The Prince of Wales.

    Some cultures believe a long life brings wisdom. I’d like to think so. Perhaps part of that wisdom is to recognise some of life’s baffling paradoxes, such as the way human beings have a huge propensity for good, and yet a capacity for evil. Even the power of faith, which frequently inspires great generosity and self-sacrifice, can fall victim to tribalism. But through the many changes I have seen over the years, faith, family and friendship have been not only a constant for me but a source of personal comfort and reassurance.

    In April, the Commonwealth Heads of Government met in London. My father welcomed just 8 countries to the first such meeting in 1948. Now the Commonwealth includes 53 countries with 2.4 billion people, a third of the world’s population. Its strength lies in the bonds of affection it promotes, and a common desire to live in a better, more peaceful world. Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human-being is always a good first step towards greater understanding. Indeed, the Commonwealth Games, held this year on Australia’s Gold Coast, are known universally as the Friendly Games because of their emphasis on goodwill and mutual respect.

    The Christmas story retains its appeal since it doesn’t provide theoretical explanations for the puzzles of life. Instead it’s about the birth of a child and the hope that birth — 2,000 years ago — brought to the world. Only a few people acknowledged Jesus when he was born. Now billions follow him. I believe his message of peace-on-earth and goodwill-to-all is never out of date. It can be heeded by everyone. It’s needed as much as ever.

    A very happy Christmas to you all.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2019 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2019 Christmas Broadcast

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Christmas Broadcast which was shown on 25 December 2019.

    As a child, I never imagined that one day a man would walk on the moon. Yet this year we marked the fiftieth anniversary of the famous Apollo 11 mission. As those historic pictures were beamed backed to earth, millions of us sat transfixed to our television screens, as we watched Neil Armstrong taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind and, indeed, for womankind. It’s a reminder for us all that giant leaps often start with small steps.

    This year we marked another important anniversary: D-Day. On 6th June 1944, some one hundred and fifty-six thousand British, Canadian and American forces landed in Northern France. It was the largest ever seaborne invasion and was delayed due to bad weather. I well remember the look of concern on my father’s face. He knew the secret D-Day plans but could of course share that burden with no-one.

    For the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of that decisive battle, in a true spirit of reconciliation, those who had formerly been sworn enemies came together in friendly commemorations either side of the Channel, putting past differences behind them.

    Such reconciliation seldom happens overnight. It takes patience and time to rebuild trust, and progress often comes through small steps. Since the end of the Second World War, many charities, groups and organisations have worked to promote peace and unity around the world, bringing together those who have been on opposing sides. By being willing to put past differences behind us and move forward together, we honour the freedom and democracy once won for us at so great a cost.

    The challenges many people face today may be different to those once faced by my generation, but I have been struck by how new generations have brought a similar sense of purpose to issues such as protecting our environment and our climate.

    My family and I are also inspired by the men and women of our emergency services and Armed Forces; and at Christmas we remember all those on duty at home and abroad, who are helping those in need and keeping us and our families safe and secure.

    Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family. Of course, at the heart of the Christmas story lies the birth of a child: a seemingly small and insignificant step overlooked by many in Bethlehem. But in time, through his teaching and by his example, Jesus Christ would show the world how small steps taken in faith and in hope can overcome long-held differences and deep-seated divisions to bring harmony and understanding. Many of us already try to follow in his footsteps. The path, of course, is not always smooth, and may at times this year have felt quite bumpy, but small steps can make a world of difference.

    As Christmas dawned, church congregations around the world joined in singing It Came Upon the Midnight Clear. Like many timeless carols, it speaks not just of the coming of Jesus Christ into a divided world, many years ago, but also of the relevance, even today, of the angels’ message of peace and goodwill.

    It’s a timely reminder of what positive things can be achieved when people set aside past differences and come together in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation. And, as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it’s worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change.

    And so, I wish you all a very happy Christmas.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2020 Commonwealth Day Message

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2020 Commonwealth Day Message

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Commonwealth Day Message on 9 March 2020.

    On Commonwealth occasions, it is always inspiring to be reminded of the diversity of the people and countries that make up our worldwide family. We are made aware of the many associations and influences that combine through Commonwealth connection, helping us to imagine and deliver a common future.

    This is particularly striking when we see people from nations, large and small, gathering for the Commonwealth Games, for meetings of Commonwealth governments, and on Commonwealth Day. Such a blend of traditions serves to make us stronger, individually and collectively, by providing the ingredients needed for social, political and economic resilience.

    Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to see and hear how membership of the Commonwealth family means so much to those living in all parts of the world, often in places that are quite remote. Advances in technology and modern media have now enabled many more people to witness and enjoy – with remarkable immediacy – this experience of Commonwealth connection, in areas such as education, medicine and conservation.

    Looking to the future, this connectivity means we are also aware, perhaps as never before, that wherever we live, our choices and actions affect the well-being of people and communities living far away, and in very different circumstances. For many, this awareness awakens a desire to employ our planet’s natural resources with greater care, and it is encouraging to see how the countries of the Commonwealth continue to devise new ways of working together to achieve prosperity, whilst protecting our planet.

    As members of this very special community, on this Commonwealth Day, I hope that the people and countries of the Commonwealth will be inspired by all that we share, and move forward with fresh resolve to enhance the Commonwealth’s influence for good in our world.

    ELIZABETH R

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2020 Broadcast to the Nation

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2020 Broadcast to the Nation

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Broadcast to the Nation which was shown on 6 April 2020.

    I am speaking to you at what I know is an increasingly challenging time. A time of disruption in the life of our country: a disruption that has brought grief to some, financial difficulties to many, and enormous changes to the daily lives of us all.

    I want to thank everyone on the NHS front line, as well as care workers and those carrying out essential roles, who selflessly continue their day-to-day duties outside the home in support of us all. I am sure the nation will join me in assuring you that what you do is appreciated and every hour of your hard work brings us closer to a return to more normal times.

    I also want to thank those of you who are staying at home, thereby helping to protect the vulnerable and sparing many families the pain already felt by those who have lost loved ones. Together we are tackling this disease, and I want to reassure you that if we remain united and resolute, then we will overcome it.

    I hope in the years to come everyone will be able to take pride in how they responded to this challenge. And those who come after us will say that the Britons of this generation were as strong as any. That the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country. The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.

    The moments when the United Kingdom has come together to applaud its care and essential workers will be remembered as an expression of our national spirit; and its symbol will be the rainbows drawn by children.

    Across the Commonwealth and around the world, we have seen heart-warming stories of people coming together to help others, be it through delivering food parcels and medicines, checking on neighbours, or converting businesses to help the relief effort.

    And though self-isolating may at times be hard, many people of all faiths, and of none, are discovering that it presents an opportunity to slow down, pause and reflect, in prayer or meditation.

    It reminds me of the very first broadcast I made, in 1940, helped by my sister. We, as children, spoke from here at Windsor to children who had been evacuated from their homes and sent away for their own safety. Today, once again, many will feel a painful sense of separation from their loved ones. But now, as then, we know, deep down, that it is the right thing to do.

    While we have faced challenges before, this one is different. This time we join with all nations across the globe in a common endeavour, using the great advances of science and our instinctive compassion to heal. We will succeed – and that success will belong to every one of us.

    I am speaking to you at what I know is an increasingly challenging time. A time of disruption in the life of our country: a disruption that has brought grief to some, financial difficulties to many, and enormous changes to the daily lives of us all.

    I want to thank everyone on the NHS front line, as well as care workers and those carrying out essential roles, who selflessly continue their day-to-day duties outside the home in support of us all. I am sure the nation will join me in assuring you that what you do is appreciated and every hour of your hard work brings us closer to a return to more normal times.

    I also want to thank those of you who are staying at home, thereby helping to protect the vulnerable and sparing many families the pain already felt by those who have lost loved ones. Together we are tackling this disease, and I want to reassure you that if we remain united and resolute, then we will overcome it.

    I hope in the years to come everyone will be able to take pride in how they responded to this challenge. And those who come after us will say the Britons of this generation were as strong as any. That the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country. The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.

    The moments when the United Kingdom has come together to applaud its care and essential workers will be remembered as an expression of our national spirit; and its symbol will be the rainbows drawn by children.

    Across the Commonwealth and around the world, we have seen heart-warming stories of people coming together to help others, be it through delivering food parcels and medicines, checking on neighbours, or converting businesses to help the relief effort.

    And though self-isolating may at times be hard, many people of all faiths, and of none, are discovering that it presents an opportunity to slow down, pause and reflect, in prayer or meditation.

    It reminds me of the very first broadcast I made, in 1940, helped by my sister. We, as children, spoke from here at Windsor to children who had been evacuated from their homes and sent away for their own safety. Today, once again, many will feel a painful sense of separation from their loved ones. But now, as then, we know, deep down, that it is the right thing to do.

    While we have faced challenges before, this one is different. This time we join with all nations across the globe in a common endeavour, using the great advances of science and our instinctive compassion to heal. We will succeed – and that success will belong to every one of us.

    We should take comfort that while we may have more still to endure, better days will return: we will be with our friends again; we will be with our families again; we will meet again.

    But for now, I send my thanks and warmest good wishes to you all.

  • Michael McNair-Wilson – 1978 Speech on RAF Greenham Common

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael McNair-Wilson, the then Conservative MP for Newbury, in the House of Commons on 26 May 1978.

    Before I start my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I have your guidance? I am listed on the Order Paper as starting the debate at 2 p.m. You have allowed the debate on unemployment in West Belfast to go on for a further eight minutes after 2 p.m. May I hope that you will allow me the same leniency, so that my debate will not be foreshortened, as clearly the Order Paper requires that it should not?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

    I quite understand the concern of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I can put his mind at rest. The matter is entirely in the discretion of the Chair. Although the previous debate overran, and I know that two other hon. Members, as well as the Minister, desire to intervene in the hon. Member’s debate, it is conceivable that I shall show latitude there as well. I hope—piously, perhaps—that in later debates the time may be made up in other ways. The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry unduly.

    Mr. McNair-Wilson

    I am most grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and most grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon to debate the future of RAF Greenham Common in my constituency. As you may be aware, the future of the base and whether it is to become fully operational again has been exercising my mind and the minds of many of my constituents since February of this year, when I was informed that the United States authorities had requested the reactivation of Greenham Common as a fully operational air station from which to operate 15 KC135 tanker aircraft.

    The KC135 is generally acknowledged to be one of the noisiest, if not the noisiest, four-engined jet aircraft flying anywhere in the world today. It was the forerunner of the Boeing 707 airliner. Because it is a military aircraft, it has none of the sophistication in terms of noise suppression machinery which might be found in existing marks of the 707. Fully laden with 27,000 gallons of aviation fuel, the KC135 has a long, low take-off and climb, during which it emits a very high level of jet noise, which has been described as a shattering roar. Local officials in my constituency estimate that operating these aircraft from Greenham will mean that literally tens of thousands of people living along an 18-mile by 2-mile-wide corridor through West Berkshire from the end of the runway will be subjected to noise levels of not less than 100 pndB, a level which will be extremely intrusive and disturbing. Those living close to the base and immediately below the flight path will be subjected to noise levels as high as 135 pndB, a level which outside their houses could cause physical pain.

    As well as the thousands of houses around the base, there are also 12 schools and two hospitals, one of which is for geriatric and maternity cases and lies directly under the flight path. On take-off the KC135 emits a large quantity of dark smoke and unburnt kerosene which causes an odour and fall-out nuisance. By anybody’s standards, it is a very unsocial aircraft. Yet if Greenham is reactivated that is what my constituents will have to live with, plus the danger of one of these aircraft being involved in an accident and falling on parts of Newbury, Thatcham, Greenham, Brimpton or, conceivably, even Aldermaston, with consequences which could be catastrophic.

    That is the nature of the threat to those living around Greenham and in West Berkshire. At least, that is what we suppose it to be. In fact, since the United States proposal was put in at the beginning of this year nobody, either from the United States Air Force or the Ministry of Defence, has proffered any details as to exactly what we should expect.

    Such details as I may myself have gleaned I owe in part at least to a visit paid to me by an American general in 1977, at the instigation of the Minister of Defence, when he gave me certain facts and figures on a confidential basis and until the proposal was put in. Those are all that I or my constituents have had to go on. We are at least grateful to General Rosencrans for his candour and responsibility in telling us what he thought we might have to put up with. I therefore hope that this afternoon the Minister will show the same candour and responsibility. I hope that he will break the wall of silence and tear away the veil of secrecy which surrounds the American proposal.

    Before asking a number of key questions with regard to the American proposal, it might be helpful if I explain the genesis of RAF Greenham Common and show how we have come to the situation in 1978 that this non-operational air base is now threatened with reactivation.

    Greenham Common was first requisitioned in 1939 by the Air Ministry and was used as an airfield by the RAF until the end of the war. It was then partially derequisitioned, so that by 1950 part of it had been returned to agriculture and several of the air base buildings had been demolished. In 1951 it was requisitioned again, this time for the use of the United States Air Force, which operated from it until 1964, when it was closed. It was closed in such a definite way that in 1964 a civil servant in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government wrote to the Berkshire County Council that

    “The Ministry of Defence no longer has any interest in the use of this airfield for flying purposes.”

    In fact, the base has remained non-operational ever since, although in 1968 it was designated as a standby deployment base for the United States Air Force in the event of an emergency.

    In 1976 it was used by the United States Air Force for its F111 strike aircraft while the runway at Upper Heyford was being resurfaced. The noise of those aircraft brought me literally shoals of letters demanding to know whether the Americans were remaining at Greenham for only the three months which they promised or whether their temporary stay would become something rather more ​ permanent. I have passed many of those letters on to the Minister. He may remember that on 16th December 1976 he was able to write to me, and I was able to write to my constituents that the Minister had said:

    “There is no intention to alter the standby status of RAF Greenham Common and consequently, of course, no plans to station any aircraft there permanently.”

    The Minister’s assurance set the minds of my constituents at ease, and mine with them.

    Since the F111s had flown away and peace had been restored to Greenham Common, we thought that that was the end of the matter. But, of course, the Minister’s assurance was just one more assurance along the line since 1964. It was his assurance and assurances like it which prompted local authorities in Berkshire to allow so many houses to be built near the air base. It must have been that sort of assurance that the Department of the Environment was working on in 1975 when, on appeal, it consented to allow the construction of 81 houses in Russell Road, very close to the air base. Then, emboldened by that decision, and no doubt by its conversations with the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Environment gave consent on appeal in 1976 for 620 houses to be built at Thatcham, again extremely close to the base.

    I remind the Minister that that was far closer than the advice which the Government gave to local authorities in their White Paper on airports policy earlier this year, when they stated:

    “New housing developments should not be permitted in areas close to major airports seriously affected by aircraft noise.”

    The White Paper acknowledged that

    “Of all the problems associated with airports, the disturbance caused by aircraft noise remains the most serious.”

    Yet those consents were given although the local authority had originally turned down the requests.

    Today we have around Greenham many thousands of houses which will be very seriously affected if the base is reopened. Many hundreds of people have bought those houses on mortgages and have used their life savings. Since February of this year, when the American proposal went in, they have seen the value of their houses ​ plummet. It is estimated that £1 million has been wiped off the value of houses in and around the Greenham air base.

    The Minister will know that I have asked him what compensation the Ministry of Defence is prepared to give to those people if it is decided to let the Americans use Greenham. What sort of grant is the Ministry prepared to give to all those other people whose lives, from the moment of reactivation, will be intruded upon by excessive noise which will spoil the quiet existence which they are now enjoying? I remind the Minister that if Greenham were a civil airport both the compensation and the noise insulation grants would be given as a matter of course. It would be less than justice if my constituents could not enjoy the same privilege.

    I have outlined the American proposal and how we believe it will affect us if Greenham is reopened. I have traced the history of the base to the present day. I should now like to ask the Minister to spell out the details which so far no one has given us. Will he tell me just exactly what the American proposal involves? Will he tell me whether the 15 KC135s are all the aircraft that will be stationed at the base, or are they just the thin end of a very much bigger wedge? Will he say how long the Americans intend to keep the base open if he gives them consent to use it?

    Will the Minister say what are the most up-to-date noise levels of the KC135 and what sort of noise footprint they will create around the base and in West Berkshire? Will he tell me what noise suppression procedures American military pilots are required to follow? Will he say how many American service men will be stationed at Greenham? Will he say what sort of build-up in road traffic we should expect? Will he tell us that the MOD and the USAF are working out compensation plans for householders whose properties have been blighted and that they are prepared to give noise insulation grants? Will he perhaps tell me that a decision has been made whether it is to be Greenham?

    My constituents and I believe that Greenham is the wrong place for the tanker aircraft, for some of the reasons that I have tried to explain. If anyone seeks to tell me that it is the cheapest ​ of the alternatives available, I think that I can and will reply that perhaps it is cheapest in physical terms, but what about the cost in terms of human suffering from excessive noise, what about the blight on house values and what about a despoiled rural environment? These, too, have a cost, and they have to be put in the balance before any decision is made.

    We all recognise that NATO needs strengthening. We recognise that new air bases may be required and may have to be reopened because the existing ones are utilised fully—if they are. I submit, however, that Greenham is not the only air base standing vacant and that the problems surrounding its reactivation outside an emergency or war-time situation require that it should remain on standby and nothing more for as far ahead as anyone can see.

  • Joan Lestor – 1978 Speech on Whooping Cough Vaccine

    Below is the text of the speech made by Joan Lestor, the then Labour MP for Eton and Slough, in the House of Commons on 26 May 1978.

    My debate follows well from the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Last July the Minister and I met on a similar occasion. Following that debate he wrote a letter to me about whooping cough vaccine. I had asked him during the debate why smallpox vaccination was no longer advocated as a routine measure for young children in this country. The Minister promised that he would let me have the answer in a letter.

    Two weeks later he wrote to me and said that smallpox vaccination was no longer advocated as a routine measure because the incidence of smallpox abroad had declined and that therefore the risk of a child contracting it in this country was now less. He said that it was felt that the risk of damage from the vaccination was more dangerous than the likelihood of small- ​ pox. That is true, and has been for a long time.

    I wish to find some common ground with my hon. Friend before I begin the main thrust of my argument. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that in all these illnesses, whatever the efficacy of the protection might have been, good health, sanitation and improved environmental circumstances have contributed as much, if not more, to the erosion of these infections than has any form of vaccination.

    It is common for the Department of Health and Social Security to say that since the vaccination was introduced among young children in the 1950s, whooping cough has declined, but whooping cough was declining in this country long before vaccination was introduced. An examination of the figures at the turn of the century proves that. Instances of whooping cough have risen and fallen over the years, but they have never been as great as they were when the disease was at its peak at the turn of the century, although there have been epidemics.

    I take issue with my hon. Friend and shall continue to do so until I at least am satisfied, because whatever one’s views might be about vaccines in general, the anxiety about the whooping cough vaccine and the way in which the situation has been handled by the DHSS is militating against the use of many other protective vaccines for young children.

    My hon. Friend is not a doctor. His colleagues are not doctors, neither am I. Ministers rely for their conclusions on advice and judgments given to them by advisers under the Committee on Safety of Medicine.

    When the medical profession disagrees as profoundly as it does on the question of whooping cough vaccine any layman or woman has a right to go to other sections of the medical profession and ask them their opinion. Is what such people say being evaluated properly? Those who first questioned thalidomide were told that they were foolish, that there was no evidence, and that it should be ignored. A time will come when, just as we see contraceptive pill after contraceptive pill withdrawn because of new dangers associated with it, other drugs will be withdrawn. A few people stand out and say “I am not satisfied. I am ​ not happy”, and one must take note of them.

    For most of my information, but not all, I shall quote Professor Gordon Stewart, of Glasgow—who is well known to the Department—and Dr. John Wilson, of Great Ormond Street. It is well known that cases of whooping cough have been declining for a long time.

    I wish my hon. Friend to establish an important matter. We were told that there would be an epidemic of whooping cough and that unless there was a massive campaign of vaccination of children against it all hell would break loose. We were told that there would be a devastating epidemic. We have had epidemics before to a greater or lesser extent. The most important consideration, however, is the number of children who, having been vaccinated, were among the increasing number of cases in certain parts of the country subsequently to suffer from whooping cough. The evidence to that effect is mounting to considerable proportions. Again, I refer my hon. Friend to the work that has been done by Professor Gordon Stewart in this respect.

    I believe that the evidence will ultimately show that children who are vaccinated against whooping cough suffer from it far less severely. In the early days of vaccination, doctors, believing that vaccination gave total protection, were not notifying cases of whooping cough. I hope that the Department is checking the research which has shown that recent cases of whooping cough have occurred among children who were vaccinated against the complaint. Large numbers of children—Professor Gordon Stewart puts the figure at 70 per cent.—who were found to be carrying whooping cough had been vaccinated against it. In addition to the dangers, therefore, there is doubt about the efficacy of the vaccine.

    Much was made by the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister about the possibility of an epidemic and about the need for a campaign. In spite of the advice that the campaign should be delayed, he took the view that it should go ahead. He said that children who had been damaged by the vaccination would be compensated, and that the risk from the vaccination was so minimal and the risk from whooping cough so great that it was better to have children vaccinated.

    It is interesting to note, however, that the incidence of measles, rubella, and influenza, as well as other children’s illnesses against which protection can be given, have all increased. Has the DHSS done it work to check whether the increased incidence of these complaints has occurred among children who were vaccinated? If that is so, why pick out just whooping cough, particularly when we know some of the dangers associated with the vaccine?

    Figures have been published from time to time showing the risk of death from whooping cough. The group most at risk from whooping cough always has been babies and young children. The few deaths that have occurred in the current outbreak of whooping cough have been of young babies. The reason is that young babies cannot be protected against whooping cough. Babies can be vaccinated against whooping cough only between the ages of nine and 12 months, and therefore babies outside that age range are at risk from whooping cough, whether there is a programme of vaccination or not.

    Even before vaccination was introduced, young babies died more frequently from whooping cough than did older children. It is an illness that proves fatal in very young children. We now know, therefore, that babies cannot be protected against whooping cough. Even so, the Department is considering reducing the age for vaccination in order to concentrate the efficacy of the vaccine into a shorter period of weeks or months. If that is so, the DHSS must proceed with care. It may cover itself by saying that children at risk should not be vaccinated, but how on earth does one establish whether a young baby is at risk?

    I do not believe that the Department can ever establish the common factors among the children who were damaged as a result of the vaccine to enable it to determine which group of children is at risk. That is because there were no common factors. Many children who suffered damage from the vaccine had not been thought to be at risk. Just what is the area of risk? What were the common factors among the children who were at risk? What were the common factors among those who suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine? If we do not know what these common factors were, how can we say which children are at risk?

    There is talk about bringing down the age in order to concertina this thing in to protect young children, but if children who have been vaccinated are getting whooping cough—I think that the evidence that has been presented is overwhelming—the likelihood of offering greater protection to babies seems very suspect.

    Secondly, and, of course, more importantly, if—I do not know this—the DHSS decides that it would not be sensible to bring down the age of vaccination for young children, they will continue to be at risk, and they have the biggest risk of death from whooping cough. It has always been the argument about death from whooping cough that has been the main thrust of the argument for vaccinating children. But young babies have always been at risk in relation to the older children in the family.

    Professor Gordon Stewart says that the vaccine is fairly ineffective and that this fact has been hidden because doctors believed that children were not getting whooping cough because they had been vaccinated. It is interesting that the baby in the family has often had whooping cough and no one has known where the baby has got it from, because the rest of the family have been protected. But if Professor Gordon Stewart’s argument is correct, that it merely lessened the symptoms but they still got the disease, of course babies were still getting whooping cough. There is little that one can do about that, with or without vaccine.

    I put another point to my hon. Friend. Has the extent of the damage to the vaccine-damaged children been quantified in any way? People talk about brain damage, but we know of cases of paralysis, of various types of mental defects, of continuous screaming, and of other minor effects resulting from the vaccine which have also been reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

    Among the things that I should like to ask my hon. Friend is the question whether the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines has given his blessing to the campaign now going ahead for the vaccination of children. Has he given his support to the advocacy to parents that they should have their ​ children vaccinated? If so, I believe that he and the Department are being very negligent in not taking into account and answering the constant arguments that are being put forward by Professor Gordon Stewart and others. To my mind, they have not been answered. Until they are answered, I believe that a large number of parents in Britain will hesitate not only about this vaccine but about many others. Until these points are answered, the whole case about preventive medicines and preventive inoculations, and about various other things, is very much at risk.

    In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend that I do not believe that anything that has happened since the first warning signs about whooping cough vaccine were given has wiped the slate clean, as it were. There are doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine. There are certainly doubts about the way in which one will protect those at the greatest risk—babies—without subjecting them to even greater risks. Thirdly, there are very strong doubts indeed that the risks from the vaccine are now not greater than the risks from the effects of whooping cough.

    It was on those grounds that the smallpox vaccine was certainly discouraged in this country, and I believe that it is on those grounds that the vaccination of children against whooping cough should also be discouraged.

  • Frank Judd – 1978 Statement on the Council Of Ministers’ Meetings

    Below is the text of the statement made by Frank Judd, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 25 May 1978.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during June. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Tuesday 23rd May.

    At present, six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for June. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 6th June and again on 26th and 27th June. The Transport Council will meet on 12th June, the Finance Council on 19th June, the Agriculture Council on 19th and 20th June and the Social Affairs Council on 29th June. In addition, it is probable that Fisheries Ministers will meet on or around 19th June.

    The Foreign Affairs Council is expected to review progress on the common strategy for growth and employment which is to be considered at the European Council at Bremen. Within this framework, Ministers will discuss questions of economic and trade policy and their consequences for Community industry. The Council will continue its discussion of the Commission’s survey of the implications of enlargement—known as the “fresco”—and will also consider a progress report on the Greek accession ​ negotiations and the Commission’s opinion on Portugal’s application for membership.

    The Council will also discuss the Community’s relations with the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance—which is the economic grouping of the Soviet Union and its allies, sometimes known as COMECON—progress in trade negotiations with Yugoslavia, relations between the Community and Australia, a report by the Commission on their contacts with the Japanese Government, and a Commission communication on shipbuilding. The Council will examine the statement to be made by the Community at the opening of renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.

    The Transport Council is expected to consider maritime pollution caused by oil tanker accidents, the United Nations code of conduct for liner conferences, maritime competition by State trading countries of Eastern Europe, priorities for work on civil aviation matters, commercial vehicle taxation systems, drivers’ hours, co-operation between railway undertakings and, possibly, the harmonisation of summer time.

    The Agriculture Council will consider proposals for the organisation of the markets in mutton and lamb, and in potatoes. Fisheries Ministers may consider the future of reciprocal fishing arrangements with third countries, particularly Norway, Sweden and the Faroes, and may also resume discussion of the revision of the common fisheries policy.

    The Finance Council is expected to consider the action needed in pursuit of the common strategy for economic recovery; and, possibly, the draft directive on life assurance.

    The Social Affairs Council is expected to consider aids to promote the employment of young people, an action programme on safety and health at work, a proposal for protecting workers exposed to the gas vinyl chloride monomer used in the manufacture of PVC plastic material, and a Commission statement on the European Trade Union Institute. Members are also expected to consider the implications for the free movement of labour of the transfer of workers between member States during industrial disputes.

    Mr. John Davies

    Does the Minister of State agree that this month, for which he has just advertised the programme, contains a quite unusually high number of critical matters? Apart from the continuing issues, there are new developments of a major kind in terms of trade policy, enlargement, relations with COMECON, relations with Australia and New Zealand—in the latter case in respect of sheep meat—and the start of the renegotiation of Lomé. All of these are fundamental issues of prime importance.

    I notice that in all these matters there is likely to be a major impact on overseas political relationships, and I wonder whether there is provision for a political co-operation meeting during the month as well. The hon. Gentleman made no announcement of it. Perhaps he would say whether that is so. If it were, presumably it would also be preparing, as the Foreign Affairs Council is, for the meeting of the European Council. If that is so, ought it not to prepare for the European Council taking a clear position on relationships with COMECON? It seems to be necessary that we should point out that for a community which is so dedicated, as the European Community is, to the principles of the freedom of the individual, to be taking on such negotiations shortly after the gross affront to human rights involved in the Orlov trial is extremely questionable.

    May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that recent events in Africa must be taken into account and that the European Community must prepare itself for handling a problem which has wrongly been presented as one which is simply safeguarding European lives? Is it realised that the need for the presence of Europeans throughout Africa is essential to the continuation of prosperity in that continent and that, if Europeans are to be discouraged by such events without any hope of help other than a last-minute emergency operation, the possibility in the future of having essential expatriates in Africa will be in question, and that affects the prosperity of the continent as a whole?

    Mr. Judd

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those very searching questions. About the high level of significance of the work before the Council, I do not dispute what he says. But as he will understand from his experience, this is ​ always inclined to happen towards the end of a presidency. We are coming to the end of the Danish presidency, and inevitably matters accumulate on the agenda. I would, however, take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the effectiveness with which our Danish colleagues have conducted their presidency, especially under Mr. K. B. Andersen, their Foreign Secretary.

    As for political co-operation, of course, the issues which are mentioned have great international political significance. But I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that we are to discuss substantial issues within the existing main machinery of the Community indicates that there may not necessarily be a need for a political commentary as distinct from this. Sometimes I think that the distinction drawn between economic and social matters and political matters is a little artificial. Inevitably, a great many economic and social discussions have political consequences. But the main discussions will be within the formal Councils themselves. If necessary, political co-operation can take place in the margins.

    Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about COMECON, of course we are all deeply concerned. Everyone in this House is concerned about human rights in the Soviet Union, as they are about the human rights in other parts of the world. This will be very much in our minds as we deliberate.

    The right hon. Gentleman then referred to Africa and made a very constructive comment. It is the fact, of course, that European and other co-operation in Africa is essential to economic and social progress. We have to look for ways in which this can be undertaken in safety and security. That is a problem that we all face and if, within the Community, we can tackle it, I am sure that that will be good progress.

    Mr. Speaker

    May I seek the co-operation of the House? If hon. Members would ask brief questions it would be a great help because many want to speak in the later debate, and there is an important point of order before that.

    Mr. Jay

    As we have been promised repeatedly a radical reform of the common agricultural policy, which is essential to this country, will my hon. Friend say whether British Ministers will put forward ​ positive proposals for such reform at these meetings?

    Mr. Judd

    I assure my right hon. Friend that we are practically committed to this. The Minister of Agriculture has demonstrated what we have been able to achieve in his recent activities in the Council of Ministers. We shall have this very much in mind in our approach to Mediterranean agriculture, enlargement of the Community and the reorganisation of mutton and lamb. Our objective is to avoid unnecessary surpluses, to look to the interests of consumers more effectively than in the past and to ensure fair access to the Community for the produce of third countries.

    Mr. Warren

    Will the Minister bear in mind that there was some doubt about whether there would be a meeting of Fisheries Ministers in June? Will he assure us that his European colleagues are not running away from the very fair and reasonable position that has been put forward by this country, and will he press them to agree to a sensible conservation policy for European fisheries?

    Mr. Judd

    There is a good point in that question because we do want an effective common fisheries policy. We do not want stocks to evaporate because there is no policy. That policy must be fair and must be seen to be fair, and the way in which there has been a certain amount of ganging up in order to isolate Britain in the past is not the way to achieve results.

    Mr. Ioan Evans

    What view will the Government take about the harmonisation of summer time in view of the fact that in the Scotland and Wales Bill there were disharmonising proposals put forward at that time?

    On the more serious point about proposals from the United Nations disarmament conference, will this matter figure largely on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council?

    Mr. Judd

    On the point about summer time, it is early days yet. Theoretically, we see the case for harmonisation and we have no blind objections to the principle. However, we want to be very satisfied that there is a great deal of common ground between countries. At present the directive put forward is very tentative and we do not see immediate results.

    On the wider point, disarmament is not a matter on the agenda of the Council of Ministers. However, we are, as individual countries within the Community, taking this matter up and, as I said yesterday in the House, I am very glad that the British Government are taking a leading role at that conference.

    Mr. Dykes

    Is the Minister aware that the European trademarks office and registry is to be kept up in the early 1980s? I know that that seems a long way away, but discussions are already beginning. Will he press immediately, by way of a preliminary agenda of the Council of Ministers, for that to be considered for location in Britain, preferably in London? On all the evidence we have, the British trademarks industry, if I may call it that, is superior to similar industries in the other member States, and most of the work is done in English anyway.

    Mr. Judd

    We take that point very seriously. Obviously, the more we can become directly involved in the life of the Community, with institutions established in this country, for example, the more demonstrable will be the fact that we are all working together.

    Mr. Spearing

    On the organisation of the mutton and lamb market, does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister of Agriculture said that he would seek complete safeguards? Has he heard the New Zealanders say that the only complete safeguard is no regime at all? If there is a regime, will he agree that it will include higher prices or intervention stocks or both, and therefore will he not say that the British Government intend to resist any regime of any sort in this commodity?

    Mr. Judd

    I do wish that my hon. Friend would join my campaign to get rid of this ugly jargon, and stop using the word “regime”. If we could just talk about a marketing system I would be a great deal more content. We must break free from the connotations associated with words such as “regime”. We see ourselves committed to working towards a marketing system for mutton and lamb but we believe that it must be the right marketing system. In that marketing system we are determined that ​ there shall be proper, fair and adequate access for New Zealand, to which we are deeply committed.

    Mr. Jim Spicer

    During the visit of the Prime Minister of Turkey two weeks ago, the Minister of State met him, and the Prime Minister made quite clear his concern about the way in which the association agreement between the EEC and Turkey had been eroded over the years. Does the Minister consider that the agreement is a matter of vital urgency, which should be discussed and renegotiated at the same time as we deal with the negotiations for the enlargement of the Community?

    Mr. Judd

    We are all well aware of the anxieties of Turkey about the association agreement and, of course, as enlargement takes place, Turkey will study the implications. We must look very seriously at the Community to make sure that the association agreement is meaningful, practical and helpful for Turkey.

    Mr. Christopher Price

    Will my hon. Friend assure us that there is no binding link between the renegotiation of the association agreement with Turkey—or indeed any association between Turkey and the Council of Foreign Ministers in political co-operation—and the accession of Greece? Will he agree that these issues must be treated separately?

    Mr. Judd

    My hon. Friend is right. We are completely committed to the accession of Greece to the Community and we want to see it happen as soon as possible. There are no conditions attached to this in terms of our future relationship with Turkey. That is a separate issue but we take very seriously our future relationships with Turkey, both bilaterally and within the Community, and we believe that there is a certain amount of work to be done in that respect.

    Mr. Crouch

    Although I am a devout supporter of the European idea, I am at a loss to know what I am meant to do as a result of this statement today about these almost religious feast days we face next month in Europe. What am I supposed to do about them?

    Mr. Judd

    I would suggest that the hon. Member should turn up for all the ​ debates in the House on these matters and make his voice heard.

    Mr. Molloy

    Will my hon. Friend examine an issue which is causing some concern in local government and among local authorities—the activities of the British Council? This council appears to make itself an adjunct of the Common Market organisation by offering public money to British authorities to enable town clerks and councillors to go to the EEC to make certain arrangements between British cities and cities in the EEC to the exclusion of those in other parts of Europe and the Commonwealth.

    Mr. Judd

    If my hon. Friend would approach me specifically on that matter I shall look into it and reassure him.

    Mr. Blaker

    Will the Minister of State think again about the doubts he expressed on the need for a meeting on political co-operation? Surely one of the lessons learned from recent events in various parts of the world, and particularly in Africa, is that there should be early discussions by the Foreign Ministers about the need for better concerting EEC foreign policy?

    Mr. Judd

    I assure the hon. Member that we have political co-operation very high on the list of our priorities. We are always in favour of political co-operation meetings when these make sense. They can be arranged at short notice in the margins of other meetings, although they are not part of the formal meetings of Councils as such.

    Mr. Loyden

    Is my hon. Friend aware that about one-third of dairy farmers in Australia have been driven out of business in recent years partly because of dumping of dairy goods in Australia? Is he also aware that about £1,000 million in this year’s EEC budget will be used to carry out more dumping of dairy produce in Australia? Does my hon. Friend think that the British taxpayers should be asked to bear the cost of driving Australian dairy farmers out of business?

    Mr. Judd

    We certainly do not want to drive Australian dairy farmers or any Australians out of work. There will be very important talks between the Community and the special Minister in the Australian Government charged with ​ trade relations abroad on 8th and 9th June. Having met this Minister bilaterally we, as a Government, are determined to see constructive progress in those talks.

    Mr. Wiggin

    Will the Minister look at the recent farm price review arrangements and not keep referring to them in such euphoric terms? Is it not a fact that France and Italy did considerably better out of the price review than we did. It was, in fact, one of the highest in real terms and not the lowest as he described it, and furthermore it gave the highest increases to the three products in the greatest surplus. What plans will the Government take to the next Council of Agriculture Ministers to deal with the structural surpluses on the Continent? We have not heard anything from the Government about this yet.

    Mr. Judd

    I believe that the hon. Gentleman does not represent the view held by most people in this country who as consumers are content that their Minister has managed to bring down to reasonable proportions some of the proposals that were being discussed in the Council of Ministers. That is no mean achievement. I believe that my right hon. Friend has not only achieved that for the people of this country, but that as a result of his efforts, consumers throughout the Community are beginning to see the relevance of British priorities for reform of the CAP.

    Mr. Flannery

    Does my hon. Friend agree that in the course of trading and political relations with COMECON countries and particularly the Soviet Union, we must be clearly seen not to have double standards on the question of political trials with which we disagree? Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that when the Conservatives refer only to trials in those countries it would help us in our relations with them if the Conservatives were seen, as a possible alternative Government about 30 years or so hence, to criticise—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I should point out to him that we are discussing the Common Market. His supplementary question sounded indirectly more like one for business of the House.

    ​Mr. Flannery

    The question of political trials, including the Orlov trial, was raised by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). I raised it precisely because the right hon. Gentleman raised it.

    Mr. Speaker

    The hon. Gentleman is quite right, I heard the right hon. Gentleman raise the subject.

    Mr. Flannery

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Body

    Is it true that on 19th and 20th June Agriculture Ministers will be discussing a potato regime? May we have an assurance that no final decision will be made until the Commission’s draft proposals are available in this country so that not only we in this House but the farmers organisations which will be affected will have a chance to examine them?

    Mr. Judd

    We have many reservations on proposals for a marketing system for potatoes, and in that context we shall certainly want to take fully into account the views held in the House.

    Mr. Forman

    Notwithstanding the technical point which the Minister understandably made about the Danish presidency, does he not feel that from the long list that he read out in his statement these Council of Ministers’ meetings are becoming overloaded? Are the Government looking at some way of diminishing the burden on the Council of Ministers, perhaps by strengthening the role of the permanent representatives? What do they intend to do about that?

    Mr. Judd

    One of the contributions made to the work of the Community during the British presidency was to shift a great deal of the work on to the permanent representatives as distinct from the Council of Ministers. We want to continue this trend so that Ministers may concentrate on real policy issues. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that in doing that we must not lose sight of the overriding principle that it must be the Ministers, not the officials, who make the policies, and that the Ministers must be accountable to their domestic Parliaments.

  • Merlyn Rees – 1978 Speech on the Accountability of Special Branch

    Below is the text of the speech made by Merlyn Rees, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 24 May 1978.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that this was not the first time that he had raised matters relating to the activities of police special branches. Indeed, he pointed out that on the Adjournment a year ago he raised the subject of the conduct of inquiries by Special Branch officers.

    When talking about accountability, without over-stretching it, it occurs to me that the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the matter in the House, even though at the end of it there may be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the information that he gets, marks this country as different from many others where I doubt whether in the assembly the matter could be raised at all.

    I understand why my hon. Friend raised the matter of South Australia and linked it to people who had served in this country. But the responsibility and accountability for the Special Branch in this country lies with chief constables and police authorities, and I am the police authority for the Metropolitan area. ​ When I take over a job, such as Home Secretary, and I have to answer for it in the House, I make sure what I am responsible for. It is for that reason that, unusually I suppose for a Cabinet Minister, I am replying to the debate.

    I think that it is valuable for the subject to be raised. It allows my hon. Friend to raise matters of concern to him, but it gives me a chance to make one basic comment. I learned this in Northern Ireland as well. I attach the greatest importance to this sphere of police work. I emphasise my confidence in the way that such responsibilities are discharged. I shall also deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark).

    I should like to correct various misconceptions which exist. I accept straight away that if little information is given, it is not surprising that misconceptions arise. But the reality is that there is no other way of providing information without ruining the work of the special branch.

    I have two direct responsibilities. One concerns interception, about which the House knows. I take that responsibility squarely. The other is responsibility for the prevention of terrorism. A number of cases under this legislation come to me. It is then my responsibility to take a decision. It is a responsibility that no one else can take. Therefore, in a direct fashion I am involved in this work.

    With regard to accountability, there is no national Special Branch. Police forces in England and Wales each have their own Special Branches. I am not a Minister of the Interior; I am the Home Secretary. My responsibility, except in the peculiar fashion of the Metropolitan Police, where I accept that the Special Branch is the largest, does not put me on all fours with a Minister of the Interior in other countries. The “Met” Special Branch co-ordinates the collection of intelligence affecting the activities of the IRA, as it has for nearly 100 years. It does not control the special branches of the other forces.

    This is a normal part of police duty. Officers employed on those duties are responsible, through their senior officers, to their chief officers of police who are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the preservation of public ​ order in their areas. They are not free from control. The opposite is true. Chief officers fully recognise that the duties of Special Branch officers are such as to require the strictest control by senior officers. Special Branch officers are accountable for their actions in the same way as all other police officers. They are not exempt from the provisions of the police discipline code or from the law. The complaints procedure is the same for them as it is for anybody else.

    Reports of investigations into complaints are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless, in the same way as with other police officers, the chief officer or his deputy is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed. The same procedure applies.

    Special Branch officers receive detailed instructions about the way in which they should carry out their duties and their responsibilities. I shall return to that. Mistakes are sometimes made. Perhaps that is inevitable in any area of human activity. Enthusiasm sometimes overcomes what should have been better judgment.

    Special Branch officers are accountable in the same way as any other police officer. Theirs is not an independent force. The subject matter of their inquiries makes it difficult for their work to be in the open, as is the generality of police work. But structure, training, discipline and organisation are designed to place Special Branch work firmly within the normal police arrangements.

    My hon. Friend spoke of the different definitions of subversive organisations. I have looked at this matter carefully. When one talks about different definitions over a period of years, implying that the scope of the Special Branch is different, I say to my hon. Friend that the information collected by the Special Branch relates entirely and solely to the proper purposes of protecting the security of the State and public order. That involves the ability of ordinary citizens to go about their peaceable and ordinary lives. Any idea that inquiries are made about people, or that files are kept on people, for other purposes or because of their political ideas or positions is not true. That is my responsibility overall. I take that responsibility seriously.

    ​ I have been in the Labour movement all my life. When I was younger the Labour Party was not as respectable as it now is—and perhaps as unrespectable as some people will try to make it out to be when we have a General Election. I know that there were times when it might have been thought that if one had a book in one’s room with “Marx” on it it could have been made out that one was a traitor or in the pay of a foreign Power. If that is the view of the hon. Member for Sutton I hope that he never has anything to do with the Special Branch, because that is the wrong attitude.

    Mr. Alan Clark

    That is the reverse of my view.

    Mr. Rees

    But the hon. Member laughed. We should be serious about this matter. In this country names are not put on lists because of political views. Parliament and the police are rightly concerned about those whose intention is to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy. They are not concerned about those who accept democratic institutions and the rule of law and who wish to exercise their right of protest.

    I have no objection to giving the numbers in the Special Branch. Perhaps that has not been done before. The Metropolitan Police Special Branch numbers 409. There are about 850 officers in other forces in England and Wales engaged on what might be regarded as Special Branch work. About 300 of them are employed at the ports, though not all are Special Branch officers. That is the great change that has taken place over the years. Twelve million people come in and out of the ports. I am questioned in the House when someone gets out after having killed an Arab Minister who is visiting this country. Checks are made at the ports, and that takes large numbers of men. The checks are carried out to a degree that has never been practised before.

    If it were not done properly there would be questions asked of me. Questions were put to me this week about a report that Carlos was seen in Kensington, with all that is implied in that. An answer that I have given to that matter is to appear either tomorrow or today.

    I turn now to the Irish question. Anyone who believes that the success rate of the Metropolitan Police, particularly ​ in the Balcombe Street siege, where 700 police officers turned up in a matter of minutes, is due to the Commissioner suddenly saying “Let us go to that area” knows nothing about policing. It is important that information is obtained.

    There is also the question of protecting Ministers. I and my family have had protection over four and a half years. It is provided by a group of armed men who work a watch system. They are Special Branch men. When one considers the number of people who have to be given protection in the course of a day, the numbers of the Special Branch can be seen in context.

    I turn now to the question of secrecy and the lack of information. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the reports of chief officers. He said that there was a difference between Durham and other parts of the country. But it is not possible to give detailed accounts of Special Branch operations.

    It is not, however, my intention or that of the police to shroud a perfectly reputable and normal branch of the police organisation in undesirable secrecy. I am always prepared to look at cases. On the case in Gwent, I say only that apologies have been offered. The matters in Paisley, in Scotland, are not my responsibility; they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There, I understand that the man was transferred. I have a report about what happened at Greenwich. Unfortunately, time is now running out, but I can say that the Commissioner has assured me that much information in that respect was wrong and that none of it was obtained from a Special Branch officer who was called to the factory to deal with allegations of industrial sabotage.

    At Keele no information was sought about the political affiliations or views of anyone. I have looked at a number of these cases very carefully. On one or two of them I say that what happened had better not have been done. But anyone who believes that these are examples of something like the KGB or OGPU—such suggestions may have been made outside, ​ but they have not been made by my hon. Friend, who has looked carefully into this matter and done a great deal of research—would be wrong.

    This is not the tip of the iceberg. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern about some of the cases that he raised, and I have dealt with some of them quickly. I do not believe that he has established any sort of a case for a general inquiry into Special Branch activity. I am not complacent about the role of this Special Branch and that is why this debate and debates of this kind are useful occasions.

    Officers in the Special Branch are subject to the ordinary law of the land. The Special Branch is not attacking democracy; it is playing its part in defending it. I know a number of the officers personally and I congratulate them because I know of some of the work they do in the fight against political terrorism.

    In view of political terrorism and all the talk that we shall no doubt have in the context of a General Election, it might be a good idea if we praised the way in which we carry out our political activities in all the parties instead of making out that one side or the other is weak, deficient or unpatriotic.

    We may have suffered less from terrorist acts than some of our European partners, but we are not immune from that threat, and it would be foolish to pretend that we are. We give a lot of time to considering the possibility that that sort of thing might happen, and we need information from the Special Branch. I am satisfied that the chief officers of police fully understand the proper role of the Special Branch and are aware of their responsibilities.

  • Robin Cook – 1978 Speech on the Accountability of Special Branch

    Robin Cook – 1978 Speech on the Accountability of Special Branch

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robin Cook, the then Labour MP for Edinburgh Central, in the House of Commons on 24 May 1978.

    As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is a year ago this month since I obtained an Adjournment debate on the operations of the Special Branch. That was the first debate that this House had had on that specific matter in 20 years, although in that same period of 20 years the number of men in the Special Branch had increased five-fold from some 200 officers to more than 1,000 officers.

    I sought this Adjournment debate because I believed that it would be for the convenience of the House if we had an opportunity to review what had happened in the 12 months since we last discussed this matter.

    I take as my point of departure the observation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in reply to that debate that the place where we should look for information about the Special Branch was in the annual reports of chief constables. With the considerable help of the Library staff, I have been looking for that information in the annual reports of chief constables, and I have looked in vain for the information.

    Of the 36 annual reports of provincial forces which we have received, only one contains any statement on the Special Branch unit within the force. That is a particularly significant result, because it shows that the great majority of provincial chief constables are not aware of my hon. Friend’s view that the appropriate place for information about the Special Branch was in their annual reports. But it also establishes that at least one, the chief constable of Durham, felt able to give a concise statement about the number of the establishment, the officers in that establishment and the location of that establishment without feeling that it interfered with the effectiveness and efficiency of that unit.

    One of more notable examples of those who made no reference to the Special Branch was the Metropolitan Commissioner included no statement on ​ the Special Branch in his report, although we know that more than half of all the Special Branch officers in Britain are answerable to him. Of course, his report is presented to the Home Secretary and, through the Home Secretary, to Parliament, and one would have assumed that both the Home Secretary and Parliament would have a legitimate interest in knowing something about the Special Branch which operates under the control of the Metropolitan Commissioner.

    Just to rub home the point, I might add for good measure that the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary also contains no reference to the Special Branch.

    It would be a matter of only academic concern that there was so little information available on the Special Branch if there were no ground for concern about its activities. It would then be a quite proper matter for Members of Parliament to become exercised about the principles of accountability and the nature of the information which should be available so that we might have a proper open, public, democratic debate on the operations of the Special Branch. But it would not be a matter of urgent business. However, some of the incidents which have occurred and come to light in the past 12 months are disturbing.

    I should like to share with the House four of these incidents. In September of last year, there was the incident at Blackwood in Wales where, at a community college, two Special Branch officers called and requested the register and enrolment cards for a class on Marxist practice.

    In November of last year, a Special Branch officer called at Paisley College of Technology, interviewed a student in the college, and offered him what he called “tax-free payments”—I do not know what arrangement the Special Branch might have had with the Treasury—in exchange for information about the political views and activities of the other students at the college.

    In December of last year, two Special Branch officers called at Keele University and interviewed two students who were in the officer training corps and also the head porter of the students’ union, all three of whom they invited to submit information on “dangerous types”. When, subsequently, they were offered a list of 22 students, they turned it down, ​ apparently in scorn, on the ground that they had a far longer list of their own.

    What all these incidents had in common was that they occurred in educational institutions. This is particularly disturbing. Hon. Members are fond of imagining that this type of activity—of collecting information and dossiers on the political activities and views of college students—is more characteristic of Eastern rather than Western European States.

    I turn from the interest of Special Branch in educational institutions to its interest in industrial matters. Last summer the work force at Greenwich Reinforcement Steel Services occupied the factory and in the course of that occupation discovered a file containing a memorandum, signed by the works manager and dated September 1975, in which it was made quite plain that he had received information from a Mr. Meynard of Scotland Yard concerning two of the employees at the plant.

    In the first of these cases it was noted that the employee had been convicted in 1954—more than 20 years before the information was given and at a time when the man in question had been a youth of only 17. It was precisely to prevent that kind of communication that this House passed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

    The other employee had noted against him three complaints, each of which was no more than a collection of tittle-tattle and gossip, and all of which in different ways were inaccurate. The file included for instance, the observation that the employee had taken part in “illegal demonstrations” although, praise be, there is, as yet, no such thing in Great Britain.

    It included also the observation that he had disturbed the peace during demonstrations, although the man in question had no conviction and had never been charged. Thirdly it included the information that he had distributed “national Socialist literature” which is thought to be a reference to the International Socialists.

    The inaccuracy of these remarks underlines one of the dangers in this practice. It is precisely because of the clandestine nature of this communication that it is impossible for the employee in question who is being slandered—and, make no ​ mistake, it is slander—to rebut the changes or correct the information.

    If we had some form of democratic scrutiny of the operation of Special Branch, and if it was answerable to some form of elected body, it is a matter of speculation whether that elected body, considering the general policy of Special Branch, would or would not agree that it should collect information on college campuses about students on that campus, pass information about past convictions, or participation in demonstrations, to employers. Personally I would be extremely surprised if any elected authority anywhere in Britain agreed to such a proposition.

    However, I am certain that whatever speculation there may be about the judgment that they might reach, decisions on such matters are of a political character and as such should not be left to policemen. Here we come to the nub of the matter. Over the last decade, as well as a growth in numbers in the Special Branch there has been a parallel expansion in the scope of its activities. These are neatly illustrated by two definitions of subversion which we have had over that decade.

    In 1963, in the course of his report on the Profumo case, Lord Denning offered this definition of subversives—those who

    “would contemplate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means.”

    Between 1963 and 1975 that definition was widened into that which was first offered in the other place, and repeated in this House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in April this year, in which he defined subversion as:

    “activities which threaten the safety or well being of the State, and are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.”—[Official Report, 6th April, 1978; Vol. 947, c. 618.]

    There is a crucial distinction between the definition of Lord Denning and the one given by my right hon. Friend. In the first place Lord Denning’s definition turns on the term “unlawful means”. The word “unlawful” is capable of clear, precise and narrow interpretation, based on statute and common law. The second definition of subversion does not turn on any reference to unlawful. It is in no way restricted to unlawful activities. It is, therefore, an invitation to the police forces that police this concept of subversion to stick their nose into any form of political or industrial activity.

    I am bound to admit that it may be that times have changed. It may be that there has been an alteration in the circumstances of society that Lord Denning could not reasonably have foreseen in 1963. If that is so, the course for my right hon. Friend is plain: he should bring before the House a measure that creates a new crime of subversion, which that measure would define and interpret. It is doubtful whether the House would accept such a measure in the foreseeable future, but it would be open to my right hon. Friend to present it to us.

    What the Government cannot do is by Executive decision create a new class of what we might term quasi-crimes such as subversion, which would not in themselves lead to conviction in any court in the land but render the suspect liable to police surveillance and being placed on police records. That is the road to the Thought Police and the closed society. If any hon. Member thinks that I am going too wide in my observations, I cite in aid information that I have recently obtained from Australia, where there has recently been published a report by a senior judge on the South Australian Special Branch. In the course of the report he mentioned that half of all those held on the records of the Special Branch are there only because they were

    “suspected by Special Branch of holding or supporting subversive’ views by reason only of the fact that such organisations or persons adopted policies or opinions which were ‘radical’ or ‘to the left’ of an arbitrary centre fixed by someone in Special Branch.”

    As a result of that wide definition, members of trade unions, peace movements, the women’s liberation movement and the divorce law reform movement in South Australia were placed on the Special Branch files.

    Predictably, there were many people in universities placed on the Special Branch files. Judge White found no fewer than two armfuls of files marked “University Matters”. In view of what I said earlier about the involvement of the Special Branch in education campuses it may be helpful if I quote Judge White’s conclusion. He said:

    “I gained the impression that nearly all of the material was entirely irrelevant to security issues.”

    That evidence from South Australia cannot be lightly dismissed. The South ​ Australian Special Branch was reorganised and re-formed in 1949 with the advice and assistance of Sir Percy Sillitoe, who was then head of MI5 in Britain. Moreover, the Commissioner for Police in South Australia for the past five years was the former Chief Constable of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshre. At both ends—at the creation of the organisation and at its control over the past five years—there is a clear British involvement. It is not unreasonable to take inferences from that report about the practice of the Special Branch in Britain.

    I am aware that there is another hon. Member who wishes to intervene and so I move to my close. Before doing so I make two matters plain. It is no criticism of the men who work in the Special Branch to say that the decision on whether someone is subversive is not properly their decision. It is not a matter for which they have had any training and not a matter on which many of them would claim to have expertise.

    Nor is it a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I take this opportunity of saying that I much appreciate the fact that he has decided personally to reply to the debate. It is not in any way a personal attack on my right hon. Friend, or on his competence or good faith, to say that it is not adequate to run a system on the basis of the judgment and integrity of the man at the top.

    The dilemma was neatly summed up in a reply made by my right hon. Friend in March, in which he said:

    “The Special Branch collects information on those who I think cause problems for the State.”—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 650.]

    Obviously, any system which operates on the basis of one man at the top keeping control is not a safe or democratic system. Nor is it a practical system given the expansion of the Special Branch and of its range of activities.
    How do we know that the incidents at Keele, at Paisley or in Wales are isolated incidents? How do we know that they are not simply the only incidents about which we happen to have heard? How do we know whether the case at Greenwich is the only case in which the Special Branch has given information on employees or the only ​ case in which the workers happened to obtain the files? We do not know the answers to these questions. We cannot know the answers without some form of independent inquiry such as has been carried out in Australia. I urge the House that the time for that inquiry is now ripe.