UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Michael Jopling – 1978 Speech on Milk Prices

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Jopling, the then Conservative MP for Westmorland, in the House of Commons on 4 May 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk (Great Britain) (Amendment) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 469), dated 21st March 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be annulled.
    I must begin by declaring my interest as a farmer, but not as a dairy farmer. We have prayed against the order not necessarily to oppose it or to force a Division but to seize the opportunity of inquiring into the Government’s intentions about the milk industry in the year or so ahead. We feel strongly that it is necessary to have the debate in view of the serious uncertainty now facing the milk industry.

    I hope that the Minister of State has something in his brief that acknowledges that uncertainty. It is uncertainty that necessarily followed the end of guaranteed prices for milk at the end of 1977. It is uncertainty whereby the Milk Marketing Board cannot accurately forecast producers’ prices as it used to be able to do for the period ahead. There is uncertainty about the whole future of the Board.

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. In order that everyone shall know my interpretation of how far we may go, I advise the House that, while it would be in order to discuss the reasons for the consequences of the proposed changes in the maximum prices at which raw milk may be sold for heat treatment for subsequent resale for home consumption, it would not appear to be directly in order to debate the price of milk for retail sale as that part of the 1977 order is no amended by this order.

    Mr. Jopling

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in some difficulty. There has been a reduction in the maximum wholesale price for milk, which is the price received by the Milk Marketing Board. That has a serious implication for the whole of the milk industry. I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss the implications of the reduction in the wholesale price of liquid milk. We shall be in serious difficulty if we are not able to discuss the effect of the reduction in price on the whole of the industry, from ​ the milkman who delivers the milk on the doorstep to the man who gets the cows in at 6 o’clock in the morning. It is a matter that has serious implications throughout the industry and I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss them.

    Mr. Speaker

    I should also have said that it would be in order to point to the anomalies that arise from the fact that lower prices are being paid to farmers while the retail price remains unchanged. I shall be as tolerant as possible.

    Mr. Jopling

    Knowing your tolerance over many years, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we shall be able to proceed in our normal way. We are most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your help and your ruling.

    I was trying to explain that the effect of the order adds a good deal to the uncertainty that already exists throughout the industry. I was able to explain some of the uncertainties that have arisen.

    I was explaining how the effect of the order would add to the uncertainty that is caused, for instance, over the future of the Milk Marketing Board. That is a matter about which we have often spoken in the House. In fact, nothing brings the parties together more than our joint determination to keep our marketing boards with their vital powers.

    I hope that the Minister of State will acknowledge that the Opposition have always supported him in his efforts to preserve the boards—particularly the Milk Marketing Board. This order will make the life of the board much more difficult.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

    The hon. Gentleman mentioned, I think to the surprise of some hon. Members who assumed that this was an increase in the price that would be paid to the Milk Marketing Board, a decrease. Can he tell us what the decrease is, because a decrease in any price is of consequence to the Board and to the whole of its operations?

    Mr. Jopling

    Yes. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the order that we are debating and the parent order—Statutory Instrument No. 2054 of 1977—he will find that in the Metropolitan police district the intention is to reduce the maximum price of raw milk on sale for heat treatment and resale by ·720p per litre, to reduce the price at a dairy situated in England and ​ Wales which is not in the Metropolitan police district by ·674p per litre and in a number of the outer islands, which I shall not read out, by ·68p per litre. Those figures rely entirely on my arithmetic, which is not all that reliable. If the Minister of State would confirm them later, we would all be grateful.

    In view of the effects of the order on the future arrangements of the Milk Marketing Board, we should appreciate a progress report from the Minister on how the negotiations for the future of the board are working out in Brussels. It is very close to the meat—or the milk—of this order. We have heard stories in the past few days that many of the first proposals over the future of the board are likely to be resolved in a satisfactory way. I shall not go into detail on those matters. In particular, we understand that a reduction in the percentage of liquid milk sales and fresh product sales from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. is likely and that a reduction from 150 to 25 cows for producer retailers who want to opt out of the scheme is also likely. These matters seem quite satisfactory. However, I should be grateful if the Minister of State would confirm whether these stories are correct.

    There is above that a vital issue which is causing just as much uncertainty in the milk-producing industry at all levels on both the distribution and the production sides. I wrote to the Minister of State about this matter this afternoon. I hope that he got my note. I see from the way that he is nodding that he did. It concerns the present negotiations over the future of the Milk Marketing Board.

    I know that a number of people are concerned that a settlement might be reached in Brussels which, while appearing satisfactory in the short term, would leave a serious danger that, after a number of years, the board’s powers might be removed. It is felt to be essential that whatever arrangement is reached should be permanent and that it should not leave the board uncertain as to its position within the constitution of the Community in future, a position that could be challenged in the courts in years to come. I am sure that the Minister is aware that this matter is causing a good deal of concern throughout the industry. There- ​ fore, we should be grateful if he would assure us that the Government will in no circumstances agree to a solution with these shortcomings in it.

    I turn to the heart of the order. Its effect is to stabilise the retail price of milk to housewives. At the same time, it reduces the wholesale price of liquid milk. This dual act seems to sum up most of the dilemmas facing the Government in the intricate maze of action and reaction surrounding the milk market.

    I acknowledge the fiendish difficulty with which the Government are faced in trying to stabilise the milk market using the various price structures which exist. I shall give examples of the action and reaction involved. Following the poor year for milk sales in 1977, which was caused partly by the escalation of tea and coffee prices, unfortunately there has been a further fall in liquid milk sales in 1978, following the rise to 12½p per pint on 1st January. The Milk Marketing Board told me today that it expects the March-April sales figures to be down about 2 per cent. on 1977. It would be interesting if the Minister of State commented on that figure.

    We do not argue with stabilising the price on the doorstep at this time. Milk sales are highly volatile, depending on price, and it is probably right not to raise the retail price for the time being. But the Milk Marketing Board has said that it thinks that there should be a further rise of ½p per pint at the beginning of June. This is a matter upon which we find it difficult to comment. But it would be helpful if the Minister of State told the House the Government’s reaction to that proposal.

    The second interaction following the order is caused by the reduction in the level of the maximum wholesale price for liquid milk. The implication of the order is to reduce on average the wholesale price of milk by about 0·7p per litre from 1st April. It is intended to allow the distribution trade its extra costs. The House will agree that in a period of inflation, with distribution costs increasing as they are, when there is a commitment to recoup the distribution trade for these increased costs, the Government have no option but, first, to increase the retail price or, secondly, to reduce the wholesale price. They can perhaps do a little ​ of both. They have chosen to reduce the wholesale price.

    At this time of increased distribution costs, with sales of liquid milk slightly down, we do not quarrel with the Government’s decision to stabilise retail prices and to reduce wholesale prices. But this step gives rise to a whole set of new actions and interactions in addition to those I have already mentioned.

    A reduction in the wholesale price of liquid milk cuts the crucial gap between the wholesale price of milk for doorstep sales and the wholesale price for manufacturing into cheese, butter and other products. I refer to this as a crucial gap because if that gap were to become too large, it could give rise to temptations to import milk from the rest of the Community. We believe that that would be disastrous for our liquid milk market.

    If liquid milk were imported, it would go for sale primarily in the supermarkets. Those sales would erode doorstep sales. That would push up the unit price of distribution. We should then be in a vicious circle of cause and effect. What is the Government’s view about the dangers of imports? What is the crucial level of the gap between the wholesale price for liquid milk and the wholesale price for manufacture which will prevent imports?

    To what extent can our health and hygiene regulations be used to prevent liquid milk imports? Although the reduction in wholesale prices that is implicit in the order makes imports less likely, we are still deeply worried and would be grateful for any information from the Minister.

    The order will have serious repercussions for the milk producers. If the wholesale price of liquid milk is reduced, the producer is paid less. That is a matter of serious concern to him. As with the distribution trade, where margins are protected by this order, the dairy farmer’s prices are rising, too. The Milk Marketing Board told me today that whereas between April 1977 and April 1978 distributors’ margins went up by about 12 per cent., during that same period producers’ margins increased by only 2 per cent. We see here the same uncertainty to which I referred earlier.
    The order, in seeking to make good the effects of inflation on distributors’ margins, ​ reduces the boards’ income from liquid milk and puts them at a serious disadvantage. Perhaps one of the most important implications of the order, is that it puts producers at the same disadvantage.

    It will become extremely difficult for the boards to influence the seasonal aspects of milk production, which is one of their vital functions in a market so heavily weighted towards liquid milk sales. The boards will be unable to announce future prices, which means that farmers will be unable to plan properly. Previously the boards have been responsible for considering how increased costs should be handled in order to ensure a continuity of supply, especially in the winter months. Now the Government seem to have taken over that role under the order. We believe that Whitehall, with the present policy of political interference by Ministers, will not do the job as well.

    Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

    This is a most important point. As I understand it, the problem is guaranteeing producers’ prices not for the term of this order but for next winter. That is the producers’ main fear.

    Mr. Jopling

    I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I shall come to that point.

    Will the Minister explain the Government’s intentions on this new level of interference with the milk price, the structure of the industry and the seasonal aspect of production, which was hitherto the responsibility of the board? He should use this debate as an opportunity to explain how far the Ministry intends to do the jobs which have been done so successfully—there is unanimous agreement on that—by the boards in the past.

    I turn to the price of the milk that goes into the manufacture of butter, cheese and other products. In that respect it is possible that the boards could do something to maintain producers’ returns in view of increased costs which have caused difficulty for the board. Because of the Government’s action the Milk Marketing Board has had the ground pulled from under it.

    What were the implications of the Government’s reaction to the debate at the beginning of the year? The Government then refused to acknowledge the ​ wording of the motion agreed by the House—namely, that the green pound was to be devalued by 7½ per cent. forthwith. We still have not had a 7½ per cent. devaluation on milk. We were told in January that the 7½ per cent. devaluation on milk was likely to come into effect when the new Community prices came into effect. We hoped that that would happen on 1st May but, because the talks are dragging on, we are now told that the date will possibly be 20th May—and it will not surprise me if the eventual date is 1st June.

    The consequence of the Government’s refusal to accept the will of the House in implementing a green pound devaluation forthwith has meant that masses of dairy produce, particularly butter, have flooded into this country to beat the time when a lower level of MCAs would be paid in respect of imports of dairy produce.

    That flood of dairy produce has totally depressed the market and the board tells me that it sees little chance during the year of increasing the price of milk that goes to manufacture in order to stabilise producers’ returns through that method. That is a serious indictment of the way in which Government action has brought added uncertainty and prevented producers from getting a better price to recoup their high level of increased costs this year.

    Where is the producer left at the end of all this when the implications of the order come into effect? He is faced with rising costs and little chance of having them fully recouped, with no idea what price he will receive for the rest of the year. I am now dealing with the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The producer sees the possibility or likelihood of grain and therefore feed prices being set to a considerably higher level than they were last season.

    Furthermore, the producer finds a great deal of uncertainty over whether the Government will be pressured into banning exports of live animals. I do not want to go too deeply into that subject, but in passing I wish to say that the producer sees before him a good deal of uncertainty, because he does not know whether the Government will allow themselves to ​ be pressured into banning live exports. Such a ban would have a serious effect on the returns of dairy farmers in terms of sales of calves and culled cows.

    I do not remember a time when there was greater uncertainty facing the dairy farmer than there is today. The National Farmers Union has already said that the dairy farmer is left as a residual legatee, as it were, since he is last in line when milk prices are considered. The Government have a good deal of explaining to do, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this uncertainty. It will not do for the Government to say that there will be a thorough review in the late summer when maximum prices for the future will be set. The Opposition believe that the milk industry could be in a serious mess before that review is complete, and in a worse mess during autumn and winter periods.

    I do not in the least belittle the fiendishly difficult problems that the future of the milk industry sets for Government, but it is vital that the Government use this opportunity of explaining to the House, and thus to the whole milk industry from the milkman who delivers on the doorstep back to the man who gets the cows in at 6 o’clock in the morning, just what the future will be. There has never been more uncertainty, and there has never been a better opportunity for Government to explain what the future is and how they intend to reduce those uncertainties.

  • David Owen – 1978 Statement on Rhodesia

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Owen, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 4 May 1978.

    The central issue facing Rhodesia at this moment, and therefore facing this House—since we still have constitutional responsibility for Rhodesia—is how to end the fighting which currently ravages that country. The extent of the fighting is not often understood. To the casual observer based in Salisbury it appears that the country is relatively stable and peaceful, but one does not have to look very far beyond Salisbury to realise that Rhodesia is torn by a war which makes whole tracts of the country answerable to the authority of whichever fighting forces happen to be operating in the area at any given moment.

    So far this fighting has been a fight for independence, for freedom—a fight to end the rule of a minority white regime and replace this with a majority government. So far, despite the differences between the black nationalist leaders which have bedevilled the resolution of the Rhodesian problem, the differences have not led to organised open fighting between the nationalists. There have been many and varied differences of policy. There have been personality conflicts and clashes, but until now there has never been fighting organised between, on the one hand, one section of black nationalist leaders and, on the other, the Patriotic Front.

    The grave danger which could face Rhodesia in the coming months is that the fighting will change from a traditional liberation struggle into a genuine civil war with fighting taking place between nationalist leaders in the name of a particular path towards independence and freedom. If this happens, and one section of black nationalist leadership is identified with the white minority regime, there is a very grave danger that the other black nationalist leadership—the Patriotic Front—will seek support in its struggle, not just from countries sympathetic to its cause in Africa but also from countries outside Africa.

    I do not believe that the Patriotic Front wishes to be placed in such a situation. It has constantly said that it does not want other people to fight battles for it. I have no doubt, that the front-line States do not wish this escalation of the conflict and internationalising of the war. I have no doubt that South Africa does not wish to see this escalation of the conflict or internationalising of the war. It is because many of the countries surrounding Rhodesia, holding differing political views and different forms of government, are aware of the gravity of the current situation that I have recently found growing support for Britain and the United States to continue their efforts towards a negotiated settlement.

    It is because people in Southern Africa are only too well aware of the consequences of our giving up our attempt to achieve a negotiated settlement that they believe that we should continue. Some believe that we should do so because they believe the internal settlement to be fatally flawed, wrong in concept, objectionable in character and that it should be condemned outright. Some believe that we should pursue our negotiations because, though they support some aspects of the internal settlement, they fear that it may not be sufficient and that it may not be able to achieve the necessary acceptance from the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Some wish us to continue because they believe, as I believe, that the principles of the negotiated settlement which we have been struggling to achieve for the last year are in themselves right, sound and capable of bringing about an independent Zimbabwe in peaceful and stable circumstances.

    Whatever, therefore, the motives of the people who wish us to continue our search for a negotiated settlement, I have no doubt that it is the responsibility of the British Government, with the United States Government, to continue, despite all the difficulties, to try to bring about an agreement which would permit elections under conditions of a ceasefire or, if this is unattainable, to achieve such a measure of political agreement between all the parties as would permit a genuine test of opinion of the people of Zimbabwe.

    The history of liberation struggles wherever they have taken place—and this House has had many debates about them, ​ whether in the past over Africa, India, Cyprus, or the Middle East—demonstrates clearly that the error of successive British Governments over many decades has never been in taking too much notice of those fighting for their freedom but repeatedly of taking too little notice of the freedom movements and feeling that their aspirations and their motivation can be brushed aside. Time and again, this House of Commons has witnessed debates where previous Foreign Secretaries or other Ministers—charged with the responsibility of trying to bring about peaceful settlements and independence to the peoples of differing countries—have been attacked for a readiness to talk to people who have been variously described as terrorists or guerrillas. Time and again, those people so described have gone on to lead their countries and have often lived to find their names spoken of in this House with respect and honour.

    I do not, therefore, seek to justify my readiness to negotiate with all the parties to the dispute in Rhodesia. I am confident that time and history will show that it is right and inevitable that I should do so. I intend to focus on the outstanding issues which have to be resolved before a negotiated settlement can be achieved. The risks of failure, as I have already indicated, are terrifying for their consequences and, though I cannot guarantee success, the one thing I can guarantee to this House is that were the British Government and the United States Government to give up now our current attempt to negotiate a settlement, the consequences that I fear would be immediate and grave. This is no idle threat, no irresponsible judgment, but a sober recognition of the realities of the situation.

    Let this House be clear, let the country be clear, and let the world be clear, that the British Government have no intention of giving up their attempt to achieve a negotiated settlement. We will not change the present situation of illegality in Rhodesia nor recognise any Government there until we are satisfied, and this House is satisfied, that what has been achieved is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Nor shall we contemplate, before being so satisfied, the lifting of economic sanctions. For us to recognise the internal settlement, as some irresponsibly now urge, would be for Britain to go back on the Fifth Principle to which successive Governments have honourably held.

    In 1971 and 1972, the then Conservative Government, even though they had negotiated an arrangement direct with Mr. Smith, felt that in order to fulfil the Fifth Principle, the acceptability of their negotiations should be measured by the Pearce Commission. Many people in Africa and some even in this House questioned whether the then Government would accept the view of the Pearce Commission. Many people wondered whether the Pearce Commission would be so arranged that it would be impossible to come to a contrary view. It is to the credit of that Government and of this House of Commons that we honoured the Fifth Principle then.

    When the Commission reported, the settlement did not have the support of the people of Rhodesia. When it became apparent that the majority of the 5 million people who lived in the tribal trust-lands did not support the agreement, the Government refused to recognise the regime or to lift sanctions.

    We learned then, or we should have learned, that the people of Rhodesia as a whole do not reside in Salisbury. They do not have access to the media. They are largely a rural population who are quite capable of making up their mind whether the form of government offered to them represents their true aspirations for majority rule.

    In 1972, the then Government were not prepared to recognise the regime until not only the proposals had been shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia but the necessary changes had been made to the Rhodesian constitution and the process which they believed would lead to majority rule had been started. How can it now be seriously argued that Britain should, in the midst of a major conflict which clearly demonstrates a divided nation, unilaterally and in direct contravention of the Fifth Principle recognise the internal settlement and lift sanctions? It would be utterly wrong to do so. It would leave Britain with barely a friend in the world, discredited and despised. It would also, even more importantly, be a betrayal of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. We owe to them a debt of honour, and it is a debt which I intend to discharge.

    Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)

    What form of government does the Foreign Secretary anticipate ​ history would record and our debt of honour would reward if Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe were to form a Government either by force of arms or by election?

    Dr. Owen

    It is crucial that they form a Government, if they were to be chosen by the people of Zimbabwe, as a result of an election and not by force of arms.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    Then what?

    Dr. Owen

    It is a central objective of mine that the transition period during the period up to that election is one which will allow that election result to stick permanently and not to be overthrown. That is an extremely important reason why we need a stable transition period.

    We have no debts or obligations to individuals or to parties in Rhodesia, and I think that that answers the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). We have never had any interest in choosing between the different black nationalist leaderships. That is for the people of Rhodesia to decide. But we owe to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, black and white, the opportunity to become free citizens of an independent Zimbabwe in a way which they find acceptable.

    At Question Time today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked what humanitarian assistance—I assumed what was meant was humanitarian assistance through the voluntary agencies—we could give to the victims of the war in Rhodesia. This is an issue which has been concerning me for some time. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will, subject to parliamentary approval, provide £238,000 for relief work within Rhodesia as part of her programme of assistance to those affected by the political situation in Southern Africa. This money will be used to support Christian Care, an organisation established by the Churches within Rhodesia in 1967 and which provides assistance to the families of detainees and the families of those executed by the regime and which also helps to rehabilitate ex-detainees and war victims. The money will be channelled through the International Universities Exchange Fund, for whom my right hon. Friend is also providing scholarships. Other Government support, Christian Care through the International Universities Exchange Fund, voluntary bodies such as the International Defence and Aid Fund, Oxfam, and Christian Aid also provide money for it, and the grant from Her Majesty’s Government will provide about 17 per cent. of Christian Care’s budget this year.

    I believe that this is the right way to deal with a very genuine problem of humanitarian assistance and how it can be channelled effectively to those concerned.

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

    I welcome, applaud and am grateful for the assistance which my right hon. Friend has announced. Will he also recognise that there are many refugees who have had to flee to Mozambique and to neighbouring Zambia? What assistance will my right hon. Friend provide for them?

    Dr. Owen

    We have already provided assistance for them, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will gladly give details to the House of the way in which we have tried to channel humanitarian assistance as fairly as we can between all the differing sections in the community.

    I have made it clear on numerous occasions, not just to this House but in all my negotiations and to the world, that Britain will honour the Six Principles. Even now, faced by an internal settlement which we believe to be inadequate, which causes us many anxieties and which gives us grave doubts, were such a settlement to be demonstrably acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, despite the fact that it means continuation of the armed conflict, were elections to be conducted which were seen by this House of Commons to be fair and free, and were a new Government to be installed with a new constitution which was clearly acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, we would be bound to honour our commitment.

    However, we face a situation where it is far from clear that the internal agreement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. There are conflicts within Rhodesia, as the dismissal over the last few days of Mr. Byron Hove clearly demonstrates. The armed struggle itself continues, and it is a brave man and, I would suggest to this House, a foolish man who would put his hand on his heart and say that the internal agreement is ​ acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. It is not for us to make this judgment, anyhow; it is for the people of Rhodesia. The world will watch closely to see whether, after an initial response by the liberation fighters, the appeal from Salisbury to lay down their arms and support the internal agreement, the process continues. At present, both sides are expressing confidence in their own position and in their own influence over the liberation forces, although Bishop Muzorewa’s UANC clearly do not think nearly enough has been done. In this atmosphere, it may well take some weeks before either side is willing to consider compromising previously held positions.

    Mr. Michael Latham (Melton)

    Without recognising the internal settlement, will the Foreign Secretary say whether he agrees and supports the appeal of the internal Governments to the guerrillas to lay down their arms?

    Dr. Owen

    I should like to end all the fighting. I do not believe that the way to resolve the issue is through armed struggle. I have made that clear on numerous occasions. However, the way to deal with this situation is to try to negotiate a settlement, and that means that I have to try to talk to people who, obviously, at this moment will not lay down their arms.

    For us in this House, for the British Government and the United States Government, our task is not to waver from our objective, which is a negotiated ceasefire and arrangements for a transitional administration which will allow fair and free elections and the emergence as soon as possible of an independent Zimbabwe.

    Despite shifting alliances among the parties and various swings of optimism and pessimism reflected in the day-to-day reporting from Rhodesia, it is our task to hold to the principles which we believe can bring about a negotiated settlement. The emphasis on a negotiation among all the parties to the dispute is the essence of the Anglo-American plan. The details of that plan have already been modified in negotiations from that set out in Command 6919 which was published on 1st September last year. I am not, and never have been, attached to all the details of our proposals. The only reason that we felt it necessary to put specific and detailed proposals on the table was ​ the inability of the parties to come together and compromise and negotiate.

    Since 1st September we have seen steady movement towards some of the fundamental principles incorporated within the Anglo-American plan. Far from the plan being dead, I see an underlying trend which is steadily moving towards an independent Zimbabwe as a result of free and fair elections. I have placed in the Library the working documents which we gave to all the parties in February. Since then we have had further detailed discussions in March and in April, and I intend to outline to the House those areas upon which we must concentrate if we are to achieve a negotiated settlement.

    Under the Anglo-American plan it was always envisaged that sanctions would be lifted at the start of the transitional period. In order to achieve international support for the lifting of sanctions, we had to ensure the irreversibility of the process towards independence. This irreversibility is fundamental if we are to satisfy others that sanctions should be lifted and that recognition should be given to any Government.

    Under the internal settlement, there is no such guarantee of irreversibility, no transfer of power and no ceasefire. The commitment to an early election under universal suffrage is crucial, as is the undertaking to release detainees and to start the process of registering voters. Regrettably, however, there is anxiety that it is the wish of some inside Rhodesia to postpone the date so recently fixed for elections and independence for the end of the year.

    I note that the UANC has commented that the release of detainees has been only a “partial measure” and that, according to reports reaching it, nothing has been done to create, in the tribal trustlands, a climate conducive to holding free elections. The UANC has also pointed out that moves have not yet been made to end racial discrimination and that—and I quote—

    “If it is expected that the guerrillas should respond to the call for a ceasefire, it must be shown, tangibly, that if they returned home they would not suffer the same racial humiliation and disabilities under which they lived before they took to the bush.”

    [HON. MEMBERS: “Rubbish.”] Hon. Members opposite may say “rubbish”, but that is what Bishop Muzorewa’s ​ organisation thinks at the moment, and we should take this into account.

    Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

    The Foreign Secretary talks about guarantees of irreversibility. These do not exist in politics. What guarantee of irreversibility was there when we gave independence to Uganda on a democratic basis?

    Dr. Owen

    The task is to ensure that the transitional period will lead to an election, and one of the ways of getting as good a guarantee as possible—and I agree there are no perfect guarantees in this world—is to ensure the presence of the United Nations throughout the process. The United Nations would be observers of the election and would be committed to the election process, the lifting of sanctions, and the recognition of the Government. That is a concrete way of achieving a fundamental guarantee. This was one of the issues underlying the proposal to bring Namibia to independence. By having United Nations involvement there is a guarantee that Namibia will have elections that will be recognised by the UN. This enabled the South African Government to overcome their understandable reservations about certain aspects of the proposal.

    Against this background of danger and uncertainty it is easy to despair. It is easy to think that there is no prospect of a negotiated settlement. It is easy just to want to give up. I believe, however, that, as so often in these types of negotiations, as more people become aware of the precipice in front, there is a tendency to start making the necessary compromises to achieve agreement. Nothing I have heard over the last few weeks makes me change my conviction that round-table talks are necessary as soon as we can ensure a reasonable chance of success at those talks.

    I have no wish to repeat the experience of Geneva. I am determined to try to lay the necessary basis for successful talks by careful and detailed preparation beforehand. I do not wish to pretend that this will be easy, but the areas of agreement are now sufficiently clear for us to have a reasonable chance of building on them and, providing that all the parties will be ready to negotiate without preconditions, quietly and in detail, we could prep are for successful talks. We have had ​ in recent months enough public meetings with extensive television and Press coverage. We are now in a position where we can best make progress by careful preparation on the ground.

    The Patriotic Front, whilst reserving its negotiating positions on a number of important points, has expressed a readiness to come to the talks and the parties in Salisbury, though expressing considerable reservations about whether future talks will contribute to a negotiated settlement, would, I believe, be ready to participate if they could be convinced of their value.

    I have therefore decided, in consultation with the American Secretary of State, to send Mr. John Graham, the Deputy Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office concerned with African affairs, to Africa to work with the United States Ambassador to Zambia, Mr. Stephen Low, and to stay there for as long as is necessary to carry out the preparatory work for successful round-table talks.

    Both will have to travel together extensively in order to keep in continuous contact with all the parties. Their task will be to work towards round-table talks at which Mr. Vance and myself will be present and representatives of all the parties at the earliest possible moment compatible with careful preparation and the emergence of sufficient common ground to give a reasonable chance of success.

    Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (Norfolk, North-West)

    Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether Mr. Graham will be based in Salisbury or in another part of Africa?

    Dr. Owen

    That is up to the discuscusions that we have with people in Salisbury. I am quite prepared for Mr. Graham to go to Salisbury and base himself there. However, it is up to them, I do not want to force it, and I am prepared to discuss this with them.

    The main areas for detailed negotiation are now clear—first, the Council covering the transition. All parties now want to have a Council of Ministers. All parties now believe this Council should effectively have legislative as well as executive powers. The difficult areas yet to be resolved relate to law and order and the constitution under which the ​ Council will operate during the transition and the method of exercising its legislative authority and, of course, the composition of the Council itself.

    Law and order has been the area on which the Kissinger proposals foundered and the Geneva Conference broke down. It has always been the most sensitive issue, and it is not surprising that in Salisbury at the moment the internal settlement has found so soon law and order to be the most divisive issue.

    The Anglo-American plan had as one of its central themes that law and order and defence should be vested during the transition in a neutral authority. The front-line Presidents have always seen the validity of this argument. At Dar-es-Salaam the Patriotic Front proposed that a resident commissioner should hold reserve executive powers over defence and law and order. This is a very considerable advance and, though we still believe that these reserved powers should also cover external affairs and the recommendations of the electoral commission, and should also include legislative powers in those fields, the concept of crucial powers residing in the hands of a neutral authority has been agreed.

    It is true to point out, too, that previously Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Sithole in consultation over the Anglo-American plan, supported this principle and indeed both argued at various stages in the discussions over the internal agreement for a neutral chairman and saw advantages in having responsibilities in the area of defence and law and order vested in such a neutral chairman. I have no doubt that in these sensitive areas during the transition it is right for the ultimate responsibility for defence and law and order to be held by an acceptable and neutral figure.

    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

    The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the need for an independent chairman. Are we to assume that there is now agreement that he would be backed up by a neutral United Nations force as well? This was a great matter of difference between the Patriotic Front and the internal settlement.

    Dr. Owen

    I shall go on to describe that. This is another thing which came out of Dar-es-Salaam—that, whereas we have had difficulty previously in accepting ​ the concept of the United Nations, we have now made significant progress in that area, too.

    Another major area is whether the Council should operate under the powers of the illegal 1969 constitution and its related Parliament or should have a new constitution specifically designed for the transition. It might be possible to explore arrangements whereby such a transitional constitution, under which the Council would have legislative authority in place of the present Rhodesian Parliament, would be set up both locally and also by legislation approved by the British Parliament. The exact composition of the Council is unlikely to be resolved until the round-table talks take place.

    In February we proposed that the transitional constitution should itself provide for the establishment of a governing council consisting of the resident commissioner and of 10, though it could easily be 20 or 30, other members, to represent the parties who participated in the Geneva Conference. In this scheme the resident commissioner would have been required to consult the governing council except in relation to certain specified subjects reserved as his special responsibility such as, at the minimum, external affairs, defence, internal security and the recommendations of the electoral commission and to accept its advice if it represented the views of two-thirds of its membership.

    In Dar-es-Salaam the Patriotic Front argued for a majority position on any council but we made it clear to them that the British Government and the American Government could not support effective control of the Council being given to the Patriotic Front, since we felt that this was totally incompatible with the concept of a neutral transitional period and a free choice for the electorate. Nevertheless, it is clear now that all parties want more authority to be vested in the Council. If there is agreement to this, the British Government can certainly accept that, though if there is to be a British resident commissioner with real responsibilities he must have the power to enable him to discharge them.

    Since then there has also been a demand by the parties to the Salisbury agreement that they should be treated as a single entity and that we should negotiate with them not as separate ​ parties. It may be that the pattern of future negotiations will increasingly become one between the Patriotic Front on the one hand and the parties to the Salisbury agreement on the other. This is, anyhow, a decision for the parties to take. Hitherto, the British and American Governments have negotiated with the five parties represented at the Geneva Conference. A lot will depend on the cohesion and unity of the Salisbury agreement.

    The second major area for detailed negotiation remains the defence and police forces. The ceasefire will require very detailed negotiation. All the parties have had a detailed explanation by Field Marshal Lord Carver of his proposals for creating a Zimbabwe national army and also how the arrangements for the ceasefire could operate. They have had, too, the opportunity of discussing the working of a United Nations peace-keeping force with the United Nations Secretary-General’s special representative, General Prem Chand. We have circulated to them a paper describing the concept and the possible working of a UN Zimbabwe force and of how United Nations civilian police observers could be attached to the Rhodesian police force, to help assure the impartiality of any police action. The exact mandate and working of the United Nations, however, is subject to a decision by the Secretary-General and the Security Council. There would, however, be considerable merit in discussing the possible mandate with the parties in greater detail and trying to reach a greater measure of agreement than exists at present.

    These issues have always been the most controversial. It was on this issue of integration that the discussions with Mr. Smith broke down in July 1977. In the past, the concept of integration has not been acceptable to Mr. Smith and to many white Rhodesians. It is interesting now that the integration of liberation fighters, prepared to return in peace, is being discussed in Salisbury as part of the internal agreement. The concept therefore of integration, which was always inevitable if there was to be a reduction in the level of fighting and an eventual ceasefire, appears now to be acceptable. This again is an important advance.

    The police forces represent a far greater problem. It is interesting that, just as ​ the Patriotic Front has raised questions over the police force, so this is becoming for Bishop Muzorewa and the UANC an important issue. It has always been the view of the British Government and the American Government that a major dismantling of the existing police force in the transitional period was not a practical proposition nor desirable for itself.

    Yet it was because we recognised that there were genuine anxieties about the police forces during the transitional period that we proposed the United Nations civilian police observers who have operated in other countries in somewhat similar circumstances and have been able to ensure through their presence on the ground the impartiality and fairness of the police force. They would be answerable directly to the United Nations force commander. Their possible operation was described in the paper given to the parties in February and now placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

    It has always been an important part of the Anglo-American plan that a new police commissioner should be appointed. The running of the police is a highly professional business and we have always felt that without professional advice and without studying the position on the ground we could not make commitments as to what restructuring and other changes would be necessary in the transitional period and, of course, the period immediately following independence.

    One thing is vital—that the police force should be maintained throughout the transitional period as a credible and reliable force giving confidence to the community as a whole. Any transitional period must have some basic stability, which can come only by retaining the Civil Service, the judiciary and the police forces as elements of continuity during the transition.

    That is not, however, to argue that there should be no changes. In all these spheres there will, of necessity, have to be adaptation in order to prepare for independence and in order to pave the way for a majority-rule Government. I share the fears expressed by Mr. Byron Hove when he said:

    “What Mr. Smith envisages is a situation in which the civil service, the police, the judiciary, the army, and all the State apparatus remain in the hands of white people. In other words, he believes in the substance of power remaining in white hands, with the shadow of authority passing to blacks.”

    I hope that that is not the position, because it would make for great difficulties. Yet the necessary changes must come by agreement and by negotiation. If this can be done prior to the transition, then the stability and neutrality of the transitional period can be guaranteed.

    The thread interweaving throughout the discussion on the issue of law and order and defence is the role of the United Nations. The major benefit to Rhodesia in involving the United Nations is not just that it can monitor and ensure that what is negotiated in detail prior to the transition for the ceasefire is maintained—that is important—and that it can be a stabilising force during the period of the transition, but that involvement of the United Nations is a guarantee of international acceptance and will allow the lifting of economic sanctions to take place at the start of the transition. It also opens up for Rhodesia the possibilities of economic assistance from the World Bank and from member States of the European Community through the proposed Zimbabwe development fund. All of this can lay the foundation for a secure economic future for Zimbabwe. It is in the interests of everyone. It ensures that Zimbabwe, when it reaches independence, can if it wishes be a member of the Commonwealth, the Organisation of African Unity and the United Nations.

    A United Nations peace-keeping presence has other significant benefits, too, for Rhodesia. An essential part of any ceasefire agreement is that the liberation fighters currently based in Mozambique, Zambia and Botswana should return in an orderly and controlled way to the country. It is vital for the future security of Rhodesia that none of these forces should constitute a threat to the stability of the country as a force capable of attempting to reverse the result of any election.

    Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

    Was consideration ever given to the establishment of a Commonwealth peace-keeping force as an alternative to a United Nations force?

    Dr. Owen

    As is well known, that would have been my preference, but I think that there were formidable difficulties in it—not least the fact that many member nations of the Commonwealth would not have been prepared to partici- ​ pate in such a force under Commonwealth auspices, lacking all the history, framework and structure for having a force that the United Nations possesses. They would prefer to make their contribution—as I think they would be prepared to do—in the context of United Nations peace-keeping, which is how many Commonwealth countries have in the past traditionally exercised that option. I see obvious advantages in terms of acceptability and control in having a Commonwealth involvement and in preserving the concept of Commonwealth responsibility for a country which all of us hope will become a member of the Commonwealth. However, in my judgment, it was not practical politics to achieve that.

    Far from United Nations involvement being against the interests of the white Rhodesians—as many of them still think it is—it can truly be argued to be in their interests and in those of Rhodesians of all races. Whereas when the Anglo-American plan was first put forward there was in Southern Africa itself a great deal of scepticism about the possibilities of the United Nations, the Rhodesian people can now see that the South African Government have been prepared to accept a role for the United Nations in the supervision of the elections for the territory of Namibia, or South-West Africa, as some of them would call it.

    Furthermore, it has been seen by many of the people in Namibia that a United Nations force can offer them not only fair elections and international acceptance but the assurance of independence. It must be profoundly hoped on all sides of the House that the settlement proposed for Namibia will be acceptable to SWAPO and that it will be carried forward expeditiously and fairly. There can be few better examples and influences on Rhodesia than to have United Nations involvement in the attainment of independence actually operating in Southern Africa. It was a major advance—a point the right hon. Gentleman raised—that at Dar es Salaam last month the leaders of the Patriotic Front accepted the principle of a United Nations military presence.

    The final main area for discussion will be how to handle the independence constitution. There are many areas which still need to be clarified and the detailed proposals on the constitution which we sent ​ to all the parties in February should provide the necessary framework for further discussion. It may be that the best way to proceed over the independence constitution would be to leave this to be discussed further during the transition period, perhaps on the basis of recommendations made by an independent commission or other independent experts. It may be, however, that all the parties will wish to clarify in detail the constitution prior to the transition. The main issues have been identified in the documents sent to the parties in February and which have been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I think that right hon. and hon. Members will see that a great deal of useful and good work has been put in on that, which will be very helpful.

    The question which now needs to be asked is how we can achieve the sort of dialogue about which I have talked and which I profoundly believe to be now necessary. I made it clear in my speech to the Pilgrims on 13th March, and have done so since frequently in this House, that no one need come to these discussions conceding in advance any of their previous positions. Attendance at the discussions carries no recognition in any way whatever. All we ask is a readiness to try to put the future of Zimbabwe first, for us all to be prepared to examine the issues objectively in a genuine search for peace. I warn now that unless we do so, there is only one alternative—the continuation of a bloody war. The situation could worsen rapidly. Britain and the United States will approach any discussions firm on principle but flexible, determined only in our belief that it is necessary to negotiate a cease fire and to provide for a transitional administration which will ensure a period of stability and peace in which fair and free elections can take place and the transition to independence and majority rule be carried out in a way which will lay the foundations—

    Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Dr. Owen

    —for a prosperous, secure, multiracial Zimbabwe.

  • Robert Adley – 1978 Speech on Trade Unions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Adley, the then Conservative MP for Christchurch and Lymington, in the House of Commons on 3 May 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent a registered trade union from expelling a member from membership of the union for political reasons.

    I have been in the House for nearly eight years, and this is the first time that I have presented a Ten-Minute Bill. Recent moves by three separate unions in different circumstances have caused me to take this step.

    In an industry with a closed shop, if union membership is removed from someone for political reasons, that person is automatically deprived of his or her employment. I believe this to be unacceptable and I have support for that view from no less a person than the Prime Minister. In answer to a Question from me on 4th April, he said:

    “I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I would deplore utterly, and would not find it at all acceptable, that people should be dismissed from their employment because of their political views, however objectionable they may be.”—[Official Report, 4th April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 234.]

    The election yesterday of Mr. Duffy on a secret postal ballot justifies one proposal which my party believes should be encouraged, if necessary by legislation—allowing the State to fund postal ballots for trade unions. I believe that my modest proposal today is another small attempt to seek a change which is needed and which would be supported by most active trade unionists.

    If the Bill is opposed today, no doubt we shall hear howls from Labour Members below the Gangway about “union-bashing”, “Grunwick”, “George Ward” and “confrontation”. None of those things is in my Bill. It relates instead to three specific events which have caused me concern.

    The first is the case of the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Front. I believe that the National Front is an obnoxious organisation, but so long as it is legal, it is legal. The attempt to expel members from the NUR for their active support of the National Front is as bad—[Interruption.] I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to proceed with my speech.

    I believe that the idea of expelling people from the NUR and therefore from their jobs solely for participation in politics, however obnoxious, is itself an obnoxious act. People would be deprived of their livelihood on the railways and if they were members of, say, the NUR, they might find it difficult ever to get another job.

    I have support for this view from no less a person than the Secretary of State for Transport. When I raised the subject of political expulsions from the NUR, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 11th April:

    “it is a dangerous principle for anyone to be dismissed from his employment because of his political views. This would be quite wrong.”

    So at least two members of the Cabinet are on my side.

    I understand that British Rail’s attitude is that it would not sack a person, even if he were expelled from the union, if he had been unreasonably excluded from the union. But no one can tell me who is to be the arbiter of what is unreasonable.

    The second union which has indulged in political expulsion is the National Union of Journalists. Mr. Donny MacLeod of Pebble Mill has been kicked out of the NUJ. His crime in its eyes is “providing help and endorsement” to the D. C. Thomson publishing group of Dundee. He appeared in a television commercial for a company which the NUJ does not like—a company which produces such hot political publications as Beano and Hotspur.

    There is as yet no closed shop in the BBC, so Mr. MacLeod is still able to work. However, I understand that if he had been employed by ITV, he would by now have found his employment jeopardised. Political expulsions of journalists, of course, amount to political censorship.

    The third union is ASTMS. Here I must declare a personal interest, because Mr. Clive Jenkins is actively seeking to expel me and now a number of my parliamentary colleagues from his union. In a letter to me from the ASTMS head office on 13th April, the supervisor of the records department, a gentleman called Bill Kingston-Splatt—a name to make the Tolpuddle martyrs’ blood ​ course quickly through their veins—wrote to me:

    “I also gather that you have been told by Mr. Jenkins that the Union does not wish to have you as a member anyway.”

    The fact is that Mr. Jenkins has arrogated to himself his own opinion and proferred it on behalf of his entire membership.

    I wish to tell Obersturmbahnfuhrer Jenkins that ASTMS is not his property and that his wish to close down the London bank staff branch of ASTMS and therefore to deprive a number of my colleagues of union membership is a wholly unacceptable political decision taken supposedly in the name of democratic unionism. He may dislike my table manners or my choice of claret, although I suspect that he dislikes my politics. I think that he is behaving like the General Amin of the British trade union movement.

    This attempt to expel people for political reasons should be challenged in the courts. People kicked out of their unions for political reasons can easily finish up as industrial gipsies, wandering around trying to find a job in some organisation which does not have a closed shop. If the closed shop goes on extending its tentacles throughout British industry, that could mean a serious situation for people who have offended the union leadership. Where do they stand under Bridlington?

    Trade union affairs, like any other aspects of human endeavour, can give rise to grave misunderstandings when there is an abuse of power by the few which brings disrepute on the majority. I make clear my position—I am a supporter of democratic trade unionism, but some union leaders are, and know that they are, more powerful than the industrial barons of the past. Workers are often more frightened of offending their shop steward than of upsetting their boss.
    Whereas a union should be a bastion of liberty, in many cases it is being used as a weapon of fear against individuals and their rights. The Bill seeks merely to control excesses or abuses of power. It is not designed to give rise to that overworked word “confrontation”, which I suspect will be used more often in the next election by more Cabinet Ministers—including the Home Secretary, ​ Mr. Speaker, who is standing next to you—than any other word.

    Political explusion is a threat to liberty. I have quoted the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport.

    Perhaps I may end by quoting some words written in the foreword to a book entitled “The Martyr of Tolpuddle” published in 1934. They were written by the then Chairman of the TUC, Andrew Conley. Referring to the Tolpuddle labourers, he said:

    “They would not be persuaded … into a betrayal of their principles nor coerced by the most vindictive punishment.”

    I doubt that Mr. Conley could have foreseen that those words would be used in the defence of individual trade unionists against abuse of power by unions. I therefore hope that the NUR, the NUJ and ASTMS will take note that Parliament will not tolerate people being deprived of their rights or their jobs for their political views—however odd or nasty or sordid some may think those views to be.

  • Arthur Palmer – 1978 Speech on Crime in Bristol

    Below is the text of the speech made by Arthur Palmer, the then Labour MP for Bristol North East, in the House of Commons on 2 May 1978.

    I wish to raise the subject of rising crime in Bristol—the figure for the police area as a whole was a 27 per cent. increase on that for last year—not because there are no other large provincial cities that have similar problems in respect of crime but because a few weeks ago the chief constable responsible for public safety in the city made an alarming statement. Mr. Kenneth Steele is the chief constable for Avon and Somerset. He is a vastly experienced police officer. He said on 30th March, according to the Bristol Evening Post:

    “I had hopes that the Avon and Somerset police would have made the streets of Bristol safe for anyone to walk in day or night; sadly we have failed.”

    I think that it would be said in the ordinary course of events that if any public official, paid to perform a task, states that he has failed, the public who pay are bound to ask whether there is something wrong with the maker of such a statement, or the organisation that he controls? However, it would be unfair to blame the police administration of Avon and Somerset for the serious state of affairs as reported by the chief constable in circumstances in which the police force itself, and the resources that it commands, are stretched beyond reasonable limits. Mr. Steele states that he needs at least 600 more men and women adequately to do the job for which he has ​ responsibility. That means an increase of approximately 500 on the present establishment of about 2,850, and the present establishment is 100 short of that figure.

    Public alarm at the chief constable’s frank remarks have been heightened in Bristol by a series of especially unpleasant and degrading rapes of women and girls in the Clifton and Redland area of the city. The perpetrator or perpetrators of the crimes has or have not yet been brought to book. In his statement the chief constable pointed out that which is undoubtedly true, that the reduction of crime, even with the largest and most effective force, needs not only police action but the full practical co-operation of the public in detecting crime and general community awareness of the situation.

    In the outstanding need to make the public as a whole more crime conscious the local Press can obviously play a part. One Bristol newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post, has run a vigorous campaign towards that end. I have in my possession, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may be interested to know, some copies of the correspondence that has passed between Mr. Gordon Farnsworth, the editor of the Bristol Evening Post, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I shall not quote directly from that correspondence. I merely say that it is understandable that my right hon. Friend should resent any suggestion that he and the Government are complacent in these matters. It is equally understandable that a local newspaper editor should sharply reflect the worries and anxieties of the citizens. I shall leave that correspondence there, having put the two points of view as fairly as I can.

    The truth is that the increase in crime in Bristol and in the country generally cannot and should not be a party issue. Those politicians who succumb to the temptation to treat it as a party issue for the sake of easy votes are accumulating much future trouble for themselves should any of them be called on to undertake the heavy responsibilities carried by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers in his Department.

    I am aware that my right hon. Friend has no full responsibility for provincial police forces, although I believe that the ​ 1962 Act modified that state of affairs to some extent. However, it is clear that in a highly centralised country for government purposes such as the United Kingdom the public look to the Home Secretary and to the Government for a lead at least.

    There was a day’s debate on law and order in the House on 27th February. It was initiated by the Opposition; I believe that it was a Supply Day. I have read carefully the remarks of my right hon. Friend on that occasion. Much of his speech was most impressive in terms of figures. He said, for instance, that as a proportion of total expenditure the police service was doing far better than it was four years ago, even allowing for the effect of inflation. Also, he said that there were altogether 7,500 more police officers in 1977 than there were in 1974.

    I accept those figures, as I must, but there is a paradox here. The chief constable of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, in his 1977 annual report, refers to financial restraints. If there are these restraints locally, in spite of more money being spent nationally, surely there is something wrong with the system. It appears that at the top more money is being allocated and that locally less is spent.

    Mr. Terry Walker (Kingswood)

    Too many paper pushers.

    Mr. Palmer

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he suggests, is it true that once again too much goes on administration and not enough on policemen on the streets?

    I want to raise a point about public involvement in the work of provincial police forces. It is true that the 1962 Act—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this—gave rather greater direct powers to the Home Secretary. I think that in the House he now answers for provincial police forces. Nevertheless, the system has still much local autonomy in its make-up and I can say that on the whole I like that; we do not necessarily want a national police force, on the lines of that of the French Republic. But need there be this extraordinary excessive secrecy about the membership of police authorities?

    No doubt I can find out who is a member of the Avon and Somerset police authority if I make the effort. Probably ​ my hon. Friend would send the information to me if I asked her. But the national handbook on our constabularies does not give the names of members of local police authorities. We get the name of the lord lieutenant—I do not regard him as a very active practitioner in these matters—and we have that of the chief constable, and usually the name of the chairman of the police authority, but no one else. The report of the Avon and Somerset chief constable does not give other names. He pays a tribute to his superiors and thanks them for their co-operation and help, but if one looks through the whole book one does not get the names of the members of the police authority to whom he is responsible.

    Surely, if the public, locally and nationally, have to find the money for the police forces, and if they want a much better service—it may not be the fault of the police that they are not getting that service—they have the right to know locally who is accountable. I should have thought that it would be a very much overdue reform if the police authority made the report to the public rather than that the chief constable did. We could let the chief constable report to the members of the authority, as their principal officer, and let those members, who are indirectly elected to serve on the authority, report in turn to the public.

    Locally, there could be far more interest in what is happening with the police than is the case at the moment, when it is often left to members of Parliament—none of us shrinks from the duty, of course—to raise these matters in this House. Given a decentralised system, much of this should be surely dealt with locally.

    As I said, the House had a full day’s debate on 27th February. I cannot hope and would not make the attempt in 15 or so minutes to go over the whole of that ground. Therefore, I shall put forward a few short points with which I hope my hon. Friend who is to reply will be able to deal.

    First, when is it expected that the Edmund Davies Committee will report on improved police pay and conditions? May I also have confirmation that its recommendations will be speedily implemented? I am sure that it is a matter of great ​ interest to the public and certainly to the hard pressed members of the force.

    Secondly, if it is proposed that the country should allocate much more money to the maintenance of law and order—I think that is the first duty of any Government—what guarantee has the taxpayer and the ratepayer that that money will be used effectively?

    Thirdly, what mechanism has been developed to ensure that the best police brains and skills for certain classes of crime are available to every local force? I think that the Bristol rapes are a case in point.

    Fourthly, have the Government any set policy to guide the courts on sentencing? I favour the short sever sentence for the confirmed offender. I am not talking of the genuine first offender, the prisons being as overcrowded as they are. I think that there should be more of a national policy on this matter.

    Fifthly, and perhaps most interesting of all in a way, what studies are being undertaken to understand the paradox of our times which applies to all advanced industrial societies—that the reduction of the worst poverty, rightly by public welfare and organised social concern has apparently been accompanied by a rise, not a fall, in crime? I should have thought that this subject was of major interest to the Home Office and that it would merit much more national investigation than it has so far received.

  • Michael Gove – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Michael Gove – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 31 March 2020.

    Good afternoon and thank you for joining us for our daily briefing in the fight against COVID-19.

    I am joined today by Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, and Professor Stephen Powis, the Medical Director of NHS England.

    I would like first to update you all on the facts about the spread of COVID-19 and the steps that we are then taking in the battle against this virus.

    143,186 people have now been tested for the virus.

    Of those, 25,150 have tested positive.

    And sadly, yesterday we recorded the highest single increase in the number of deaths as a result of COVID-19.

    381 people died, meaning that of those hospitalised in the UK, the number who have passed away now totals 1,789.

    Every death is the loss of a loved one, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who are grieving.

    Overall, 10,767 people in England have been admitted to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms.

    The largest number of those is in London, with 3,915 people in hospital care.

    While in the Midlands, the number of those hospitalised is now 1,918 and accelerating upwards.

    These numbers reinforce the vital importance of following the Government’s social distancing guidelines.

    The more we restrict contact, the more we slow the spread of the infection, the more that we can help the NHS build the capacity needed to care for those most in need.

    And that capacity is increasing.

    More NHS staff are returning to the frontline and more testing is taking place to help those self-isolating come back and to protect those working so hard in our hospitals and in social care.

    But while the rate of testing is increasing we must go further, faster.

    A critical constraint on the ability to rapidly increase testing capacity is the availability of the chemical reagents which are necessary in the testing.

    The Prime Minister and the Health Secretary are working with companies worldwide to ensure that we get the material we need to increase tests of all kinds.

    And as well as increasing the number of staff on the frontline, and the tests which protect them, we must also increase the capacity to provide oxygen to those worst affected by the disease.

    We have just over 8,000 ventilators deployed in NHS hospitals now. This number has increased since the epidemic began, thanks to the hard work of NHS professionals.

    But we need more.

    That is why we are buying more ventilators from abroad – including from EU nations.

    And it’s also why we are developing new sources of supply at home.

    Before the epidemic struck we had very little domestic manufacture of ventilators.

    But now, thanks to the dedication of existing medical supply companies and the ingenuity of our manufacturing base, we have existing models being produced in significantly greater numbers and new models coming on stream.

    Orders have been placed with consortia led by Ford, Airbus, the Formula 1 Racing teams including Mclaren, GKN Aerospace and Rolls Royce and Dysons.

    And I can announce that this weekend, the first of thousands of new ventilator devices will roll off the production line and be delivered to the NHS next week. From there they will be rapidly distributed to the front line.

    And as well as increasing the capacity for ventilation – which helps support those patients worst affected – we are also increasing the capacity to provide oxygen to affected patients at an earlier stage in the process of the disease, helping to avert, we hope, the deterioration of their condition.

    A team led by UCL, working with Mercedes Benz, will produce 10,000 new CPAP devices to support affected patients and a team from Oxford University are also developing related technology.

    And in our determination to prevent as many patients as possible seeing their condition worsen we are conducting rapid clinical trials on those drugs, including anti-malarials, which may be able to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on those affected.

    But even as we seek to explore every avenue to slow the spread of the disease, to reduce its impact and to save lives, I am conscious of the sacrifices that so many are making.

    That is why the Chancellor’s economic package is in place – to support people through a difficult time.

    It is also why we we are working so closely with our colleagues in the devolved administrations to coordinate our response across the United Kingdom and I am grateful to them

    As I am to the thousands of dedicated public sector workers – cleaners and social workers, prison and police officers, those in the Royal Mail and in our schools – and I want to thank them and also the leaders of the trade unions who represent them.

    In this united national effort we also are delivering food and prescription drugs to up to 1.5 million of the most vulnerable who are self-isolating for three months.

    And we will do more to help, working with the three quarters of a million people who have volunteered to help at this time. Many are already heavily involved in local community support schemes.

    And we want to work with them to ensure that we support not just the 1.5 million most vulnerable to the disease but all those who need our help through this crisis, those without social support, those in tough economic circumstances, those who need the visible hand of friendship at a challenging time.

    That is why my cabinet colleague George Eustice and the Food and Farming Minister Victoria Prentis will be leading work, with food suppliers, retailers, local authorities and voluntary groups to support our neighbours in need.

    I also want to thank the men and women of the military who have stepped up their work as part of the ongoing response to coronavirus.

    three RAF Puma helicopters are now stationed at Kinloss Barracks in Moray. These Pumasare working closely with a Chinook and a Wildcat helicopter based at RAF Leeming, North Yorkshire, to meet any requests for assistance from NHS boards and trusts across Scotland and Northern England.

    A second helicopter facility covers the Midlands and Southern England working out of The Aviation Task Force Headquarters at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire. Chinook and Wildcat helicopters normally based at RAF Odiham and RNAS Yeovilton respectively support the Southern areas.

    And these helicopter facilities have been set up to support medical transports across Scotland and the rest of the UK. The task force is also available for general support such as moving equipment and personnel to where they are needed across the UK.

    The Kinloss-based support follows last weekend’s use of an RAF A400M transport aircraft, working with the Scottish Ambulance Service, to evacuate a critically ill patient from the Shetland Islands to Aberdeen to receive intensive care treatment.

    I am deeply grateful for everyone in the our armed forces and in the public sector who are doing so much to help in the fight against coronavirus

    And, of course, all of us can continue to play our part in supporting them and the health service by staying at home, supporting the NHS and saving lives.

  • Richard Buchanan – 1978 Speech on British Rail Catering

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Buchanan, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Springburn, in the House of Commons on 26 April 1978.

    Throughout the period that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has been in the House, I have served on various Committees with him and have formed a high opinion of his ability and have appreciated his pleasant personality. It is therefore more in sorrow than in anger that I oppose the Bill, because he is stooping to the tedious repetition of the anti-nationalisation argument perpetuated by the Conservative Party.

    The hon. Member is seeking the denationalisation of British Rail catering. Which part? Does he mean the hotels which make a profit, the station buffets which make a profit, or the train catering which makes a huge loss? There are no prizes for the answer to that one.

    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the realities of the situation. It is true that British Rail catering makes a loss. The hotels make a profit of about £850,000, the station buffets about £750,000. But there is a ​ loss on train catering of £2,300,000, which is less than 1 per cent. of the Inter-City passenger revenue. Its impact on the generality of passenger fares is minuscule. To say that passengers who do not participate in the catering subsidise those who do is arrant nonsense.

    One can consider our own Refreshment Department. One of its great handicaps is that it can never estimate the needs. On a running three-line Whip, the Dining Room might be empty. On a one-line Whip, when it seems that hardly anyone is about, the Dining Room might be packed. A similar impossibility of gauging needs leads British Rail, particularly on its trains, into this deficit.

    We seldom hear complaints about similar losses on airlines, simply because a meal is included in the marketing package. If the catering were costed separately, I am sure that it would show quite a loss.

    The hon. Member said nothing about withdrawing catering from British trains, but the last time that private enterprise dabbled in a nationalised industry, if a line or service did not pay, it was simply chopped off. How bitterly today we regret the lines in the North of Scotland which were chopped off by the Beeching axe.

    The withdrawal of train catering would be a sure loser. I do not see private enterprise, under any franchise, taking this on. It would mean extensive and expensive reinvestment in dining cars and in kitchens.

    Many of us have for long advocated a considerable reinvestment in British Rail and will continue to do so. There is to be an investment in new rolling stock, including dining cars and kitchens. Most of the outdated vehicles should be scrapped. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is present, will take note.

    The staff of Travellers-Fare, who have been ridiculed, do a magnificent job on trains. They work in very cramped and difficult conditions. British Rail has speeded up its service. My journey to London used to take 10 hours. I would get on a sleeper at St. Enoch’s and I could read my book for a few hours, fall asleep and wake up in London. Now I am there only a few hours. The Travellers-Fare people have to try to serve two meals in that short time. They ​ often have to do so on trains travelling at 100 miles an hour and therefore swaying considerably.

    Travellers-Fare has consistently shown a better economic return than similar organisations on the Continent and in America. The only one that makes any profit is the Swiss.

    British Rail is taking steps to improve its service across the board, including its catering provision—as it always does. Reorganisation is taking place. Travellers-Fare has been incorporated into British Transport Hotels with a remit to exploit every opportunity for the successful expansion and development of the business. New services such as the Gold Star menu are proving popular and the experimental reduction of buffet prices and an improved range of food are boons to the travellers. Station buffets are being refurbished and we are told that dining cars will be refurbished. If they are out of date, they should be scrapped.

    Who in private enterprise would take on rail catering? There is one claimant in the field—Sir Charles Forte, who hoisted himself into the top ten individual contributors to the Tory Party with a contribution of £25,000. He is a man who believes in profitability. Was it entirely accidental that Sir Charles Forte staked his claim on the very day on which the Egon Ronay survey produced the most damning report on motorway cafeterias run by his organisation? Or was it a desperate device to divert attention from his predicament? I think that that is what it was—and this Bill is an equally transparent manoeuvre by the supporters of the Tory Party.

    With all the difficulties inherent in catering on trains, Travellers-Fare services have improved immeasurably and will continue to do so. Station buffets pay and provide a good service. As I travel from Euston to Glasgow, I should hate to go into a buffet at either end and find some of the conditions that Egon Ronay found in motorway cafes.

    Let us take Newport Pagnell—[HON. MEMBERS: “No, you take it.”] Egon Ronay spoke of an indefensible state of neglect, badly worn carpets, dirty seats, sluggish table clearing and a clutter of rubbish and cigarette ends. Nor would I appreciate going for a meal or a snack in the dining car if I found, as Egon Ronay did in the motorway cafeterias, ​ that sausages were inedible, the fish was stale, the pea soup was lurid, the hamburgers were tough and there were watery carrots. And those were among the more complimentary remarks. That is what the hon. Member for Pudsey wants to introduce to British Rail.

    Sir Charles Forte has a monumental task cleaning up his own organisation. Let him begin with the motorway cafes.

  • Giles Shaw – 1978 Speech on British Rail Catering

    Below is the text of the speech made by Giles Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Pudsey, in the House of Commons on 26 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to denationalise catering facilities provided by British Transport Hotels Limited for British Rail; and to make consequential provisions in relation thereto.

    Let me begin by stressing that in recent times British Rail has shown a much greater sensitivity to the need to improve standards and performance of British Rail catering both on certain station buffets and on trains. But the fact remains—in my view it is a principle which is not easily bucked—that British Rail primarily exists to run an effective and efficient railway service, which demands a much greater concentration of effort on capital projects to improve track, trains and allied engineering services than it does to maintain an efficient kitchen and dining car or a wide variety of food in a station buffet. Hence it has been obvious for many years that the catering side of British Rail is very much the Cinderella of the outfit.

    This apparently embarrassing conflict was well set out in a report by British Rail executives in evidence to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in February 1977. In an interview with that Committee on 8th February 1977, the director of British Rail responsible said:

    “These two aims of satisfying the customer and keeping marketing costs down to manageable proportions are sometimes in conflict, not surprisingly, and one tries to achieve a balance by sensitive judgment of priorities … This balance between a service and the cost of providing it is something which is regularly under review. In fact, there has been over recent years an ongoing—and it is still going on—respecification of the train catering requirement to meet changed eating habits.”

    The first purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to relieve British Rail of the embarrassment of seeking to be responsible for two aspects of travellers’ requirements which are so frequently in conflict.

    I do not consider that the catering facilities of British Rail should be regarded as a marketing embarrassment when it might be possible for them to be operated by the private sector as the major objective of a business. Secondly, in terms of economic performance, the whole House would be anxious to see ​ that British Rail should continue to take developments which lead to profitable business.

    From the latest public figures available, catering on stations generated a surplus of £1·2 million before paying rentals of £0·6 million. But train catering showed an operating net loss of £2·4 million in maintaining catering service facilities on more than 900 weekly trains. Therefore, the overall position of catering on stations and on trains is one of running at a very substantial loss.

    Perhaps the House should understand that catering is one of the activities carried out by a subsidiary of British Transport Hotels Ltd., the subsidiary being known as Travellers-Fare. At the end of 1976, BTH operated some 181 station and catering units. But it also had 55 operating units in the hands of tenants. So the idea of franchising in respect of British Rail’s operation is far from new. Indeed, it is established.

    It will be a second objective of my Bill, therefore, to encourage this trend to franchising which has been examined frequently as a possible solution to British Rail’s station catering problems. For evidence of this, I turn to the Central Transport Users’ Consultative Council, in whose 1977 annual report the matter of franchising was discussed. I quote from page 10 of that report:

    “To the Sub-Committee’s suggestion that where train catering facilities appeared to be uneconomical they could perhaps be provided by the franchise system, the Board”—

    the British Rail board—

    “replied that the standards specified by the Passenger Business could not be guaranteed if the train catering was fragmented in this way. The Committee decided that the Sub-Committee”—

    of the Transport Consultative Committee—

    “should investigate the advantages or disadvantages of using the franchise system for train catering.”

    It is only right equally to inform the House that the Sub-Committee to which I referred examined this possibility and gave some reasons why in its view it might not be possible. Amongst the reasons given were, first, that the private entrepreneur might consider the risks too great in view of the lack of storage and refrigeration facilities and the lack of sufficient detail regarding trade levels, ​ secondly, that of having to operate as self-employed with all the problems of VAT regulations, thirdly, that trade union opposition was most likely, and, fourthly, that choosing a suitable route for an experiment might be difficult.

    I submit that these are not sufficient reasons for deciding that a franchising arrangement for British Rail catering cannot be run and manned. It is this lack of flexibility which formed part of the criticism of British Rail by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its report in 1977.

    The answer was in part clear—that such flexibility required readapting the system, and that would require modification of existing vehicles and capital reinvestment. None would deny this as being necessary, but the point is that catering services are regarded as being so low on the list of priorities that their chances of getting a slice of British Rail’s investment cake are very slim, and the travelling public today are being served in ancient rolling stock under an inflexible system.

    I do not see why this should not be livened up by a healthy injection of competition. Clearly, the most fruitful ground for this to occur would be on railway station buffets and other catering services where there are increasing signs that Travellers-Fare, while seeking to modify its menu and pricing, is still offering fairly unappetising services.

    Why is it that many station buffets close at 8 p.m.? Why is it that many do not open before 10 a.m. on Sundays? It is largely because these institutions are run as part of a greater institution, namely British Rail, and are not run by normal competitive criteria which would provide keener services for the travelling consumer.

    It would be possible to attract the public to eating in railway station restaurants if their service and pricing were improved. Such is the case on the Continent. Many gourmets descend on the Gare de l’Est in Paris and other French stations primarily for eating rather than for travelling purposes. Although within the British Transport Hotels there are many first-class hotels, they tend to be those less associated with their proximity to railway services than with their ​ proximity to leisure activities such as golf at Turnbury or Gleneagles. The principle here is quite clearly that to tailor a package to the holidaymaker and tourist is good, but that to tailor a package to those who happen to travel on British Rail is very difficult and unprofitable. In my view, the public deserve the best catering available whenever they travel, and they have been expressing concern in increasing numbers that the standards have slipped badly.

    I am aware that the management of British Rail has just announced for a temporary period a reduction of some prices of British Rail foods. The cost of coffee and biscuits has dropped from 29p to 24p and that of coffee and cheese sandwiches from 51p to 44p. A standard cup of powdered coffee plus hot water will now be 15p instead of 17p on most services. However, anyone who has the good fortune to consume it in a railway dining car will find that it still costs 24p. That is because the menu describes the cup of coffee as being “freshly made”.

    There has been a clear tendency for British Rail to concentrate on the expense account diner instead of on the travelling family. But even the business man must be getting a little doubtful when he is served grilled salmon maitre d’hotel at £3·85 or with chicken stanley at £3·40, so called because it is presumed to be chicken.

    Then, of course, there are wines from the British Transport Hotel cellars, located in Derby, I believe, including the new French table versions vin blanc, vin rouge and vin rosé, which are the Freeman, Hardy and Willis amongst viniculturists.

    The matter of principle which causes most concern remains the extent to which British Rail should enjoy the monopoly of catering services to its passengers as well as the monopoly of selling them tickets and travel. As the Price Commission said in paragraph 153 of its recent report, the British Rail board—

    “are actively developing station trading facilities including the development of franchise arrangements. The catering service on trains is currently being reviewed.”

    I accept that it is a necessary provision. But it is clear that it is seen as a marketing cost designed to hold and guarantee business when it could and should be seen as a marketing oppor ​ tunity in its own right. That is why the development of franchising, which the British Rail board apparently is considering, should be taken further and why it should become by Act of Parliament a requirement that it seeks alternative sources of capital to run and develop the catering services for the travelling public on British Rail.

    Just as British Rail offers Gold Star weekend packages at their hotels, it surely could offer an inclusive meal ticket for family snack facilities to enable Awayday returns to become a more attractive form of travel to a wider number of people.

    This Bill, therefore, will be in the interests not only of British Rail, which seeks to eliminate losses and yet is confined by restraints on capital expenditure, but also of the travelling public, who will be able to obtain better pricing through competition, a wider variety of foods and from station services a source of catering which could and should become a matter of local interest and pride.

    I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Hugh Dykes – 1978 Speech on Assaults on London Transport Staff

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hugh Dykes, the Conservative MP for Harrow East, in the House of Commons on 24 April 1978.

    I feel particularly grateful for the opportunity of being able to raise in the House tonight what I regard as an extremely important subject—the growing problem of assaults on London Transport bus crews and public transport personnel in the Greater London area. I think that not only the crews themselves but members of the public will also welcome the opportunity of this subject being debated in the House.

    It might seem unduly alarmist to raise this matter as a specific subject rather than just to deal with general matters concerning violence in modern society and law and order in general. Incidentally, I can certainly see the logic of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department attending the debate, and I thank her for coming to the House, rather ​ than a Minister from the Department of Transport being present on the Front Bench.

    But I do not think that it is enough just to treat this matter as a general problem. There is a specific problem in connection with the growing number of violent indictments on public transport vehicles affecting bus crews, and in respect of Tube trains and other trains, and there are also those involving ticket staffs and station staffs. But the main problem certainly relates to the buses.

    If anyone accused me of being alarmist, I would deny that by saying that last year there were nearly 800 cases of common assault. There were 130 other offences similar to that. If one singles out just serious assaults, including grievous bodily harm, one finds that 237 incidents were reported in 1977, and those are only the reported incidents in the Greater London area on London Transport buses alone. They do not include incidents which presumably do not get reported, the minor incidents which could easily turn into violent incidents, and all the rest of it, and they do not include assaults that occur on other members of the public in public transport vehicles, but only on staff, mainly conductors and drivers.

    One-third of the assaults, according to London Transport—and I am grateful to London Transport for the figures that I have been given—occur after school hours. Therefore, this is an indication, as with a large number of violent incidents in London—and I say this with great regret and great reluctance—that once again we must consider the growing and specific problem of juvenile offenders, particularly in the big cities and especially, unfortunately, in London.

    There are no conclusions to be reached in geographical terms, other than that—it is equally with great regret that I have to say it—most of these incidents have taken place south of the river. I refrain deliberately from singling out specific areas in Greater London where these violent and horrible incidents have taken place on buses, but that seems to be the pattern that has developed.

    Lest there be any mistaken conclusion from other kinds of sociological factors and trends in all this sad and sorry picture, there are no racial conclusions to be drawn either. As much as there may be ​ gangs of hooligans, of whatever race, operating in crowds, there are also incidents perpetrated by single assailants or by assailants going around in a group or in pairs, and they can be from all sorts of ethnic groups.

    But the incidents are now serious enough to cause grave anxiety at London Transport and particularly amongst the people who have to suffer them directly, the bus crews themselves. In respect of the Tubes, although this is much less of a problem, as we can well imagine, none the less the number of serious assaults last year, at 58, including station staff and ticket staff, is in itself sufficiently alarming for London Transport to be thinking hard about that as well. The total of common assaults was nearly 140. The increase in recent years has been about 10 per cent. per annum.

    I know that London Transport is thinking desperately and urgently about measures that can be taken. Before I get on to that aspect of the matter, I feel that it is my duty to mention one or two of the worst incidents. I am grateful to London Transport for providing me with the sad information in these accounts.

    The driver on a No. 83 bus received an emergency signal from the conductor and went round to assist. Four youths, who had apparently been trying to steal a woman’s bag, jumped off as the driver arrived. He was struck in the eye, breaking his glasses, and suffered bruising. Because of the incident he was unable to carry on driving. That driver subsequently collapsed and died in North-wick Park Hospital, which serves my constituency and the whole of the borough of Harrow. The cause of death was registered as coronary thrombosis. That driver ​ came from Harrow. That was one of the worst of the recent incidents.

    On 16th April last year the driver of a No. 147 bus, which was stationary at Redbridge Lane at 11 o’clock at night, was approached by a 16-year-old boy and asked what time the bus was leaving. The driver told the defendant, and at that point the youth struck the driver about the head and chest and then kicked him several times. The driver suffered cuts to both legs, bleeding from the nose, bruising to both legs and the lower half of his back. The youth was caught and subsequently fined a princely total of £40.

    Another incident involved a 65-year-old woman conductor who was on duty at just before midday. A youth boarded her bus and entered the lower saloon. She asked him for his fare. He said that he had no money and would not pay anything. He was told that he would have to pay. He jumped off the bus, but then jumped on again, kicking the woman conductor several times on the leg, and ran off. He was not traced, but following this incident it is unlikely that the woman conductor will be able to continue working.

    Recently there has been one of the worst incidents in recent years, as a result of which a life sentence was imposed on an assailant of a bus driver and his conductor, who in a dreadful incident were both stabbed repeatedly. I have in my hand two photographs from two separate editions of the West London Observer showing quite clearly the stab wounds inflicted on Mr. John Heath, the heroic bus conductor who, with his colleague, the driver, suffered these dreadful injuries. Those two men find it difficult to carry on with their work. They are working at the moment, but one can imagine the effect of that incident upon them.

    If it is said that I am being alarmist, I reply that I am not. Am I singling out individual incidents and exaggerating them because this does not happen as much as some people think? The answer is in the negative. These incidents have increased enormously in recent years. London Transport is very worried about the situation and so are the bus crews.
    What can be done about this growing problem? I believe that all of us in the community of London should get together to consider these problems and various ​ possibilities for action and put them together in some kind of package.
    There are no magic or easy answers. I am not suggesting that London Transport has been slow or dilatory in trying to find solutions, or in making suggestions to the police or the Home Office. Furthermore, I am in no way criticising the Government, and I am certainly not criticising the suffering bus crews who have to put up with these attacks. We must examine the background to and the causes of these dreadful incidents, the increase in their numbers and possible solutions.

    This problem is too complicated to merit superficial or glib solutions which are not real solutions but just rhetorical references to sloganised possibilities. There are certain strands which have developed recently which perhaps give us the clue to some of these crimes and to what can be done, if not to eliminate them—which would be expecting too much— at least to mitigate their effects and to reduce their incidence in future, if that can be done. This demands a strong lead and guidance from the Government. That is why I have raised the matter tonight.

    The evidence shows that many of these incidents are seemingly mindless. They often occur late at night. Many assailants have had too much to drink, which is in itself a difficult problem. It is easier to talk about it than to solve it.

    The problem is also often to do with fare-dodging or young assailants trying to pay the reduced fare even if they are over age. It is often to do with gangs going around together, waiting until the bus is empty of passengers late at night and then assaulting a conductor or conductress, often elderly, and the driver if he comes from the cab to try to assist the conductor or conductress.

    There have been fewer instances pro rata on one-man vehicles. That is probably understandable, in that there is a certain limited amount of physical protection for the operative there. Moreover, the passengers must complete the act of paying the fare on entering the vehicle, rather than paying the conductor.

    We must have enormous sympathy for conductors in London over the way in which they struggle and tussle with crowded buses and service the whole bus, ​ particularly a two-deck bus, as is overwhelmingly the case. They have to keep an eye on all the passengers getting on and off, and make sure, if possible, that all the passengers pay their fare.

    It has recently been suggested that in order to stop fare-dodging the operatives should impose on-the-spot fines. I have serious doubts about that. In many ways it could make the matter worse. I think particularly of an elderly operative on a deserted route south of London trying to get six aggressive youths to pay a fare when they flatly refuse to do so late at night. The mind boggles.

    What can be done? I hope—this is not an old suggestion but is relevant to this modern situation—that magistrates will be more realistic in imposing stiffer fines and other sentences and that the authorities, including Home Office Ministers, will again consider the arguments for a short, sharp sentence. That is better than long-drawn-out prison sentence on an assailant who may indulge in a mindless act which he—and sometimes, regrettably, even she nowadays—regrets later for a long time.

    I turn to the physical equipment side. London Transport has already been installing two-way radios and shrill sirens with flashing lights that the bus driver can operate. That must be continued and the programme should be accelerated. I understand that it is not due to be completed until 1981, which seems a long way away in view of this emergency.

    I pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police for their suggestions. They have been discussing the matter with the Government. The use of plain clothes officers, in particular, but also uniformed officers on occasion, can go a long way to reducing the number of incidents, with people being taken into custody by being arrested on the spot, even for a minor incident. There have been a number of experiments along those lines which have appeared to be extremely encouraging.

    I come to two specific suggestions that I make with deliberate emphasis, but with great care, because I do not want them to be misunderstood. The Government, London Transport and the Metropolitan Police should at least consider the possibility of using spray dye which cannot be removed and which can be administered by bus operatives on assailants. It would ​ permit identification later, because it could not be removed from the face or hands of the assailants. It sounds drastic and dramatic. I put it forward only as a suggestion, but I should like it to be seriously considered. I must emphasise that such dye does no harm to the person on whom it is sprayed.

    I come to a more serious suggestion. Again, I do not want to be misunderstood. On such occasions, the Press naturally use phrases such as “tear gas” which can be misunderstood. But it is now possible to manufacture individual canisters which can be used on one assailant or perhaps two assailants to immobilise them for a few seconds while help is summoned. I know that bus crews will have great hesitation about such an idea. I merely say at this stage that it, too, should be considered.

    I also recommend that bus crews should consider self-defence lessons, on a voluntary basis. I do not wish to be misunderstood and I hope that the Minister will not think that I mean that bus crews should become instant judo experts. That would be hopelessly unrealistic. I mean the older operatives might possibly be given limited lessons in self-defence techniques which would help them in these critically difficult situations.

    None of these is a perfect solution. It is easy to think of situations, but they usually spring up without warning. Crews have to be on the alert. I raise this matter on a day when a number of garages and routes in London are immobilised because of unofficial action by various garages. That action is totally unconnected with this subject, although there have been stoppages of late services as a result of a fear among bus crews of violent incidents, which have become more regular in recent months.

    The industrial action being taken today has to do with the rescheduling of bus services. I regret that this action should be taking place when the bus crews can see that the House is trying to help them. Their action will be inflicting problems on the long-suffering public. Even when we are critical about certain aspects of London Transport services it should not be thought that we are not equally anxious to try to help the bus crews and the public to cope with these terrible incidents, ​ only some of which I have related I could submit a case history of such incidents concerning attacks on bus drivers and conductors.

    I come now to the dilemma of the public in all this. Should the public stay out of the way if they see bus drivers and conductors being attacked? Should they have a go? What should they do? The natural advice we would give is for them to keep well away. I believe that the Metropolitan Police would say the same thing. I gather that the Tottenham depot is examining the idea of a perspex screen to protect the operatives of one-man buses. If all of these issues are tackled, the public will benefit. They will feel reassured in that the crews are being protected.

    I have put forward possibilities to be examined. This problem will continue and worsen unless drastic action is taken. I hope that matters will not just be left to London Transport but that all of us in London will feel that we are engaged in solving a disturbing and sad problem.

  • Jeff Rooker – 1978 Speech on the Zip Fastener Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeff Rooker, the then Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, in the House of Commons on 21 April 1978.

    I wish to raise in this debate the problems of the zip fastener industry in the United Kingdom. In 1970, the United Kingdom imported £1·2 million worth of zip fasteners and component parts and exported £2 million worth. By 1977, we were importing £10 million worth of parts and completed zip fasteners and exporting only £7·1 million worth. In other words, we had moved into the position of being a net importer of parts and completed zip fasteners.

    The problem basically relates, in the substantial change over the last seven years, to the construction of a factory by the Japanese manufacturer YKK Limited at Runcorn, Cheshire, which is being used as a means of substantially increasing imports of completed parts from Japan. It has not been used to manufacture components and completed zip fasteners in this country, as was the intention, and thereby it has not given work to British workers to replace the jobs lost in our own factories.

    I have raised this matter on a number of occasions, and I raise it again today because the assurances I have been given on the Floor of the House and in letters from Ministers over the past three years can now be seen to be—shall we say?—erroneous.

    In June 1974 I received a letter from my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry in which he said ​ that the Department had had assurances from YKK Limited that over the next four years it planned to increase substantially the United Kingdom-manufactured content of its products and correspondingly to reduce significantly its imports of both completed fasteners and components.

    On 19th February 1975, when I had an Adjournment debate on this very problem, my hon. Friend again said to me:

    “However, in discussions which took place last year, YKK assured us that over the next four or five years it planned to move towards a substantially British operation, with only specialty lines being imported.”—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1521.]

    By 5th January 1976, I received a letter from the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael) in which he said:

    “The total value of YKK’s imports will probably remain at about the present level over the next two or three years, but this is because it is planned significantly to increase exports incorporating imported components. There will, in other words, be fewer zip fasteners and parts of Japanese manufacture coming on the home market in the future.

    YKK has provided us with estimates of its imports and exports for each of the next three years. We have no reason to question these intentions or to doubt the company’s ability to carry them out. We shall, however, continue to monitor the situation carefully and to hold regular discussions with YKK.”

    It is now 1978, and I have the final figures for imports and exports for 1977. The figures were given in a Written Answer on 15th March 1978, which showed that in 1974 the total of imports from Japan, which all came from YKK, was £1·8 million of completed parts. This shot up in 1977 to £4·7 million. In terms of the Japanese percentage of imports, the rise was from 78 per cent. in value terms in 1974 to 80·7 per cent. in 1977.

    On 3rd April I was given the figures in volume terms for completed zip parts. Japan had 76 per cent. of all imports in 1974, and this had increased to 83 per cent. by 1977. This meant that some 6·2 million dozen complete zips, or 75 million zip fasteners, were imported from Japan. Therefore, the assurances that I was given on three separate occasions in three different years have been shown to be meaningless.

    On 17th March this year, when I asked the Secretary of State for Industry two specific questions about YKK, I incorporated some of the assurances I had received, and I asked what the Department had done. The Minister of State replied to my Questions, and he said:

    “The value of YKK’s imports, net of its exports, has not declined as the company has forecast and indeed increased in 1977, though the volume of imports was lower than for 1976. The Department continues to impress on YKK its concern to see the level of imports decline.”—[Official Report, 17th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 363.]

    That is a pretty wishy-washy answer. It was taken up by business journalists on The Times, who got the message. Mr. Derek Harris wrote an article on 20th March in which he said:

    “The Japanese zip fastener maker, YKK, has failed to live up to assurances given in 1974 that its imports into the United Kingdom would be reduced.”

    I was concerned about the wishy-washiness of the answer, but I then realised that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was going to Japan to encourage more business men to come to Britain to invest here. Obviously, he was not going to upset the Japanese by making it clear that those already here had failed to keep the pledges given to his Department and through it to the House.

    After that article in The Times, YKK was pretty unhappy about it. The chairman, Mr. Takahashi—I have the spelling here for anyone who wants to know, because I cannot pronounce it properly—was somewhat upset about the interpretation of the Minister’s answer in the article. The article in The Times on 14th April claimed that YKK had said that it had never given any undertakings to the Government on the level of imports. That made me wonder about the substance of the two letters that I had received.

    Before I was successful in getting this debate, I had managed to purloin a copy of the letter which the chairman of YKK (Britain) wrote to the Minister of State and of which he sent copies to the editor of The Times. In that letter, dated 28th March, he told my right hon. Friend that his replies to my Questions showed a complete misunderstanding of the situation. He said that there was

    “no undertaking between your Department or the Zip Manufacturers Association and ourselves.”

    He also said:

    “Without concrete undertakings, there can be no such talk of failure.”

    He went on to talk of

    “Our plan, which is merely an estimate and not in any way a duty to be carried out to the letter”.

    Why are we encouraging more Japanese businesses to come here, supposedly to stimulate the British economy, create new jobs and increase output, when the direct result of this company coming to Britain has been exactly the opposite? We have lost far more jobs in Birmingham, in Lightning Fasteners and in the factory owned by the Americans in Wales. Other factories have closed down. In the British sector—some of which is American-owned—more jobs have been lost than have been gained through this Japanese plant at Runcorn. In 1976–77 our imports must have been unsatisfactory for Ministers concerned with the industrial strategy.

    A civil servant at the Department of Industry, Mr. R. E. Sellers, wrote recently to the Zip Manufacturers Association in Britain claiming that YKK makes at Runcorn 65 per cent. of what it sells in the United Kingdom. We know what the company imports into this country in the way of finished products and that must represent the other 35 per cent. That is on the assumption that it is not importing completed goods for re-export. Since it has factories elsewhere in Europe, that would not make much sense. But if the total import of 75 million finished zips is 35 per cent. of its sales, its total sales must be about 215 million completed zip parts.

    The best estimate by the United Kingdom Association of YKK’s market share in Britain is between 120 million and 140 million finished zips, or about 50 per cent. of the company’s own estimate. Either the figures are wrong or YKK is not manufacturing at Runcorn anything like 65 per cent. of what it sells in the United Kingdom. It is bringing in massive quantities of semi-finished goods to finish at Runcorn and is still importing 75 million finished zips a year—77 million last year—to sell here, although it has a factory which is producing these goods.

    I want the Minister to meet my challenge. I have quoted the assertions of the Department of Industry based on the 1974, 1975 and 1976 figures. We can now see the figures for 1977, which are in flat contradiction to the assurances. What action will the Department take? The dumping claims have not been exactly successful. The Department is still seeking new investment. This story should be a warning to other industries about the effects of seeking Japanese investment.

    Will the Department toughen up the concessions that it will try to get from YKK to reduce its import content of completely and partly finished goods and to manufacture at a factory in this country using materials obtained at the nearest possible place, manufactured in Britain by British workers? That was the intention.

    Has YKK filed its accounts for 1975 yet? I understand that it is lax in filing its accounts. It is therefore more difficult for British industry to see what its competitors are up to. I am not saying that British industry is pristine white in this respect, because some British companies are notoriously bad at filing accounts. British industry needs a certain amount of knowledge about what the United Kingdom branch of YKK is doing. It seems as though YKK is breaking the law by having not yet filed accounts for beyond 1975.

    Over 500 jobs have been lost in this small industry, which employed only about 4,500 people four years ago and which now employs fewer. The United Kingdom market for this product involves only about £20 million. It is a small but vital part of Britain’s manufacturing industry. It represents a symptom of what is wrong in British industry because we have allowed the Japanese to claim a large share of the market by using allegedly unfair methods.

    It is a sorry state when our Government receive assurances and do not ensure that they are carried out to the letter. My constituents can come only to me to put their case to the Government. The Department of Industry has let down my constituents in this respect. It has also let down workers in other constituencies. In the past couple of years two factories have been closed, and the signs do not look good.

    Inflation has increased, and so one should forget the cash calculation of what has happened in the industry. But the volume has increased leaps and bounds in the last few years. This factory was supposed to create jobs in Britain. What is the Department going to do about this? I know that there is to be a meeting next week between departmental officials and members of the Zip Fastener Manufacturers’ Association. They are fed up to the teeth with meetings. They have attended meetings in each of the last four years. They have received letters and assurances but, frankly, the managers and workers in the industry, particularly at Lightning Fasteners in Birmingham, are beginning to lose any of the confidence that they might have had in the Department of Industry.

    They are not looking for protectionism. They are not campaigning to get rid of the Japanese factory. They are prepared to meet competition fair and square. Since I have had the honour to be a Member of the House, I have visited the Birmingham factory on several occasions. It does not seem to be behind in technology or productivity. The workers are not always walking out because of a dispute. They are anxious about their jobs.

    It is easy to draw a graph showing what has happened in the last four or five years. The workers can see that if the present situation continues their jobs will disappear. They can see that their firm might go out of business. YKK has made this happen all over the world. It ruined the United States zip industry by flooding the market with cheap goods at less than their production price. This put local manufacturers out of business. YKK monopolised the market and put up its prices.

    This company is massive. It is a multinational company, as is Lightning Fasteners, but, at least, other companies play the game according to the rules. Most of British industry, unfortunately, does this. Some of us believe that, if British industry did not play according to the rules, it might do better. That, however, is one of the problems of British industry. I claim that the rules are being broken by this company. Even when it gives assurances it does not live up to them. No amount of statements about the odd dispute on a building at Runcorn will ​ satisfy local manufacturers and workers. They have had assurances, but these have not been kept. They want to know from my hon. Friend this afternoon what the Government will do about it.

  • Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 30 March 2020.

    Good afternoon, welcome to Downing Street for today’s coronavirus press briefing. I’m joined by our Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance and Dr Yvonne Doyle, Medical Director at Public Health England.

    Before Sir Patrick provides an update on the latest data from our COBR coronavirus dashboard, I just want to give you an update on the steps that we as a government are taking to defeat coronavirus.

    Our step-by-step action plan is aiming to slow the spread of the virus, so fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, thereby protecting the NHS’ capacity. At each point we have been following the scientific and medical advice and we’ve been very deliberate in our actions – taking the right steps at the right moment.

    We are also taking unprecedented action to increase NHS capacity by dramatically expanding the numbers of beds, key staff, life-saving equipment on the frontline so that we give people the care they need when they need it most.

    That’s why we are instructing people to stay at home, so we can protect our NHS and save lives.

    I can report that through the government’s ongoing monitoring and testing programme, as of today:

    134,946 people have now been tested for the virus

    112,805 have tested negative

    22,141 have tested positive

    Of those who have contracted the virus, 1,408 have, very sadly, died. We express our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those who have passed away and I think those figures are a powerful reminder to us all of the importance of following the government’s guidelines.

    We must stay at home to protect our NHS and save lives.

    I would like to thank all those involved on the frontline and in particular all of those in the NHS for their battle against the virus, the amazing doctors, the amazing nurses and all the support staff working day and night.

    The thousands of other key workers – from our teachers to supermarket workers to our fantastic diplomatic network – who are all as a team working around the clock to get us through this unprecedented coronavirus challenge.

    This is a united national effort and the spirit of selflessness shown by so many is an inspiration.

    I now want to turn to what we’ve been doing to support British people travelling around the world.

    Coronavirus hasn’t just challenged us at home, it is the greatest global challenge in a generation. And as countries work to secure their borders and stop the further spread of this deadly virus, we appreciate that an unprecedented number of UK travellers are trying to get home, and we’re not talking a few hundred or even a few thousand. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of people travelling around the world.

    So with that in mind, on 17 March, we advised people against all non-essential travel around the world.

    And since 23 March, we have advised that all UK residents who were currently travelling abroad should return home. Hundreds of thousands have already done so.

    But many travellers haven’t yet managed to get home. From young back-packers to retired couples on cruises. We appreciate the difficult predicament that they find themselves in.

    We also recognise the anxiety of families here in the UK, who are concerned to get their loved ones home. It is a worrying time for all those who have been affected.

    And I want to reassure them that this government, their government is working around the clock to support, advise and help British travellers get home.

    I have spoken to more than 20 foreign ministers around the world in the last week or so to support this effort, to keep airports and ports open, and to facilitate access to them by British travellers.

    Over the weekend, I spoke to foreign ministers from Australia, New Zealand, India and Brazil and Pakistan, and I also spoke to the Ethiopian Prime Minister, and in all of those cases urged them to work with us and keep commercial routes flying.

    Given the scale and the complexity of this challenge, it inevitably requires a team effort. So the Foreign Office is working with other governments, and there is a particular focus on transit hubs, and we’re also working with the airlines to keep as many flights running as possible.

    We have a lot more to do, but we have already helped hundreds of thousands of Britons get home.

    The first priority has been to keep as many commercial flights running as we can, and that’s based on just purely the scale and the number of people who want to come home.

    As a result of those efforts, and the cooperation we received from the Spanish government, we’ve enabled an estimated 150,000 UK nationals to get back from Spain. On other commercial routes that have come under pressure, we’ve worked with partner governments and airlines to get back 8,500 UK travellers back from Morocco and around 5,000 UK nationals from Cyprus.

    That gives you a sense of the scale of the challenge and the numbers of British travellers abroad.

    Now in circumstances where commercial flights can’t operate, we have already chartered flights, which proved necessary to return 1,400 UK nationals on flights, for example, from China at the outset of this crisis and more recently from Peru.

    We’ve not faced challenges in getting people home from abroad, on this scale, in recent memory. Airports are closing down or preventing airlines from operating on a commercial basis. Local authorities have placed restrictions on movement that prevent people from getting to the airport. And the critical transit hubs that we rely on for long-haul flights are also shutting down, or in some cases, limiting their flights.

    Some of these restrictions have been done with very little notice, some with no notice at all which makes it very difficult to respond. So, international collaboration is absolutely vital.

    As I said, it is a team effort, in it involves government working with other governments and also with the airlines.

    So with that in mind, I can today announce a new arrangement between the government and airlines to fly home tens of thousands of stranded British travellers, where commercial flights are no longer possible. Partner airlines include British Airways, Virgin, Easyjet, Jet2 and Titan, and this list can be expanded.

    Under the arrangements that we are putting in place, we will target flights from a range of priority countries, starting this week.

    Let me explain a little bit about how this will work in practise.

    Where commercial routes remain an option, airlines will be responsible for getting passengers home. That means offering alternative flights at little to no cost where routes have been cancelled. And it means allowing passengers to change tickets, including between carriers.

    So for those still in those in countries where commercial options are still available, don’t wait. Don’t run the risk of getting stranded. The airlines are standing by to help you. Please book your tickets as soon as possible.

    Where commercial flights are no longer running, the government will provide the necessary financial support for special charter flights to bring UK nationals back home. Once special charter flights have been arranged, we will promote flights them through the government’s travel advice and by the British Embassy or High Commission in the relevant country.

    British travellers who want a seat on those flight will book and pay directly through a dedicated travel management company.

    We designated £75 million to support those flights and airlines to keep costs down and affordable for those seeking to return to the UK.

    In arranging these flights, our priority will be the most vulnerable, including the elderly or those with particularly pressing medical needs, and also looking in particular at countries where large numbers of UK tourists struggling to get home.

    UK travellers, if they haven’t already done so, should check Foreign Office Travel Advice and that advice is under constant review, and it can help travellers to find out more details of how to access the flights under this arrangement.

    They should also follow the social media of the UK embassy or high commission in the country where they find themselves, so that they can be directed to accurate real time information, including from the local authorities.

    For any questions that can’t be answered in that travel advice, or by the UK Embassies or High Commission, we also have our call centre working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    I know that it has been difficult for some travellers to get through. Just to give you a sense of volume: on average, we normally receive 1,000 calls a day to that call centre. Last Tuesday, we had nearly 15,000 – the highest on record.

    So we’ve boosted our resources, we’ve redeployed people to assist in the call centre and we’ve tripled our capacity.

    Yesterday, the call centre answered 99% of calls, and helped thousands of British travellers to get the answers they need.

    So, for those stranded, or for families nervously waiting news and wanting to see their loved ones return home, we are doing everything we can. We have improved our advice and boosted the call centre, so travellers get better and swifter information.

    We have put in place this arrangement with the airlines so that we can reach British citizens in vulnerable circumstances abroad where commercial flights aren’t running. And we’re working intensively round the clock with all of our partner countries and governments around the world to keep open the airports, the ports and the flights to bring people home.

    We’ve not faced an international challenge quite like this before, but together we are going to rise to it.

    And, of course here at home, we can all support our NHS by continuing to follow the guidance to: stay at home, protect our NHS and save lives.