UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1972

  • Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on Rhodesia

    Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on Rhodesia

    The speech made by Denis Healey, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 January 1972.

    May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and ask him for an assurance that he will make a further statement to the House tomorrow in the light of any information he may receive between now and then?

    May we be told the names of the three Africans who have been arrested with Mr. Todd and his daughter? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends are not just concerned but are appalled by the arrest of Mr. Todd and his daughter, particularly against the background of the firm promise conveyed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman from Mr. Smith that normal political activities would be permitted throughout the period of consultation.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Todd is one of the few Europeans in public life in Rhodesia who has won the confidence of the Africans, that he is an ex-Prime Minister aged 63, that Mr. Smith may have taken a step which will lead to the very violence that he purports to hope to avoid and that many of us will feel that this may well have been his purpose in carrying out the arrests, for it is already evident that all the evidence produced to the Pearce Commission by Africans in both the urban and tribal areas shows that there is overwhelming opposition to the proposals for a settlement?

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I must rely entirely on newspaper reports for our understanding of what is happening in Rhodesia at this moment? Is he further aware that reports in newspapers which cannot be considered to be hostile to Her Majesty’s Government—newspapers like the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times—make it clear, first, that all the shootings and bayonetings which have taken place in Rhodesia in recent days have been carried out by the security forces responsible to the Smith régime and not by the Africans; secondly, that the violence in Gwelo followed and did not precede the use of tear gas against a peaceful demonstration by Africans who were seeking to present their views to representatives of Her Majesty’s Government in the Pearce Commission inside Gwelo; and, third, that all the newspaper reports show that representatives of the African National Council did their best.
    even after the use of tear gas by the Rhodesia forces, to prevent the use of violence by the demonstrators?

    Has the Pearce Commission yet had an answer to the question it put to the Smith régime almost a week ago about the complaints made by the African National Council of interference by the Smith régime in its attempted activities in the tribal and urban areas?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that unless Mr. Smith can produce satisfactory evidence that Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter and the three arrested Africans have already taken action calculated to disturb public order in Rhodesia, he will insist on their immediate release.

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on Rhodesia

    Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on Rhodesia

    The statement made by Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 January 1972.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    Since I last spoke in this House on Rhodesia, hon. and right hon. Members will have been concerned at the reports of violence from different parts of that country, especially in the Gwelo district.

    It is in the Government’s view essential that the Pearce Commission should be enabled to carry out its task of testing Rhodesian opinion in conditions free of intimidation and violence, in which normal political activities are possible.

    Against this background, the House will have been concerned, too, to have received the news of the arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter and three others. On hearing the reports last night I immediately sent a personal message to Mr. Smith seeking to establish the facts behind these arrests.

    In his reply Mr. Smith has said that they are cases of preventive detention arising from the internal security situation that has developed in the midlands area of Rhodesia during the last fortnight, under the 1970 Emergency Powers Regulations.

    He has said that the reasons for detaining Mr. Todd and his daughter were not based on their publicly stated opposition to the settlement proposals, but that the decision was, on the contrary, taken solely on the grounds of security and the need to maintain law and order in Rhodesia, without which, as recent events in Gwelo have shown, it is not possible for the Pearce Commission to carry out its task.

    It is, of course, for the Commission, which has the advantage of being on the spot, to satisfy itself that normal political activities are being permitted in Rhodesia, provided, as the proposals for a settlement make clear, that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. Lord Pearce, who has himself issued a statement in Salisbury expressing deep concern at these detentions, and has asked the Rhodesian Government for their reasons, will no doubt be considering the position in the light of Mr. Smith’s reply and other information available to him in Salisbury.

    I am arranging to send to Salisbury tonight the Head of the Rhodesia Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that he can, in consultation with our liaison officer there, and after discussion with all concerned, let me have an up-to-date assessment of the situation in the light of the recent events which have caused general concern.

    In a matter of such importance I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say more about these arrests until I have received further full information from Rhodesia. I will keep the House informed.

  • John Parker – 1972 Speech on Banning Cigarette Advertising

    John Parker – 1972 Speech on Banning Cigarette Advertising

    The speech made by John Parker, the then Labour MP for Dagenham, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes; and for purposes connected therewith.

    Since 1962, we have had a succession of reports from the Royal College of Physicians on the question of tobacco smoking generally, and particularly cigarette smoking. Each of them pointed out more strongly the dangers arising from the increase in cigarette smoking and demanded drastic action, but no effective action has been taken either by this House or by the Government.

    The problem is very serious. There has been a very big increase in the smoking of cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is the problem rather than tobacco smoking in other forms. In 1940, 25,000 people died from tuberculosis and 5,000 from cancer of the lung. In 1970, hardly any people died from tuberculosis but nearly 50,000 died from lung cancer. Cigarette smoking has become the killer disease in this country.

    It is important to compare the figures with the figures for deaths from other causes. In 1970, as many people died in this country from cigarette smoking as were killed in our bomber crews in the whole of the last war. Four times as many people were killed by cigarettes in 1970 as were killed in road accidents. Far more people died from smoking cigarettes than from taking drugs. There is an enormous campaign in this country against the sale of drugs and drug peddling, but no one organises against the “pushing” of cigarettes.

    Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

    I do.

    Mr. Parker

    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but there has not been a campaign against cigarette smoking comparable with the big campaign which has been, quite rightly, mounted against drug pushing.

    The great increase in the incidence of lung cancer is not the only result from the smoking of cigarettes. There has been a big increase in the incidence of cancer of the stomach and the very painful cancer of the bladder. The figures for coronary thrombosis have been affected by the increase in cigarette smoking. Most important of all, the incidence of chronic bronchitis—the “English disease”—has been very much on the increase. We have had clean air legislation to deal with the atmosphere, but in many public places the increase in cigarette smoking has increased the liability of many people to suffer from chronic bronchitis. Many people are dying painfully and many people are dying young who might otherwise have led useful lives.

    What should be done? I am well aware that on both sides of the House there is a great deal of support for what is called “the new liberalism”.

    In other words, the right of the individual must be asserted on all possible occasions. But there are occasions on which the right of the community as a whole needs to be stressed, particularly when we are considering what action should be taken.

    Many people may say that a man has the right to kill himself by smoking cigarettes if he wishes. I do not quarrel with the right of a man to kill himself in that way if he so desires. But we must look at the consequences of that. What happens to the family of a man who dies in his early forties? The community must keep his wife and children. There are 50,000 people a year dying from this disease, who thus make a call on the National Health Service. This means that the whole National Health Service must be organised to meet the needs of this section of the population when the rest of the population may well require other sectors of the National Health Service to be given greater priority.
    I mentioned the question of chronic bronchitis. The extreme consumption of tobacco by cigarette smokers can affect the health of people with whom they come in contact. That is something which must be considered from the community’s point of view. My case is that the community has the right to take certain action in order to halt the spread of this habit and to ensure that young people, in particular, do not become addicts of the cigarette.

    Hence this proposed Bill to prohibit cigarette advertising. If passed, it will prohibit the advertising of cigarettes, whether in the Press, in magazines or on radio, as has happened in connection with television. It will prevent the sponsoring of sporting events by cigarette companies and prohibit cigarette advertising on billboards. It will make a clean sweep of advertising in cinemas and theatres. It is an extreme action, I agree, but it will have one big advantage: no great army of bureaucrats would be required and no red tape would be necessary to enforce a law of this kind. It would be very effective.

    Last year, the tobacco interests spent £52 million on promoting the sale of tobacco, particularly of cigarettes. However, only £100,000 was spent on health education in this respect. The tobacco companies would not spend £52 million unless it showed results. If we prevented advertising, there would undoubtedly be a very big drop in the sale of cigarettes, which is the object of the exercise. It would be very effective in checking the enormous death roll from tobacco smoking.

    Up to now, the only action which the Government have effectively taken is to get the tobacco companies to agree that a warning about the dangers of smoking should be put on cigarette packets. That has been tried in the United States. In the first year after the law was introduced in America, the consumption of cigarettes declined by 1 per cent. It is now higher than it was before the law came into force. No effective results will ensue from such action taken by the Government of this country.

    The Government are frightened at the possible loss of revenue if there were a very big drop in cigarette smoking. They should be prepared to face that loss and to make it up from other sources if necessary. The ending of large-scale cigarette advertising would not only affect cigarette smoking. Young people would no longer feel that it was the right thing to do or that prestige was to be gained from cigarette smoking. That is another point which should be borne in mind.

    This is a moral issue. We are fighting for the younger generation. It is right that we should take steps to prevent them from becoming addicts. This House has fought such battles in the past. I ask hon. Members to remember the very important battles over the question of the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself as a result of back-bench Members raising the matter. Back benchers forced legislation on the Government of the day and against powerful vested interests who fought back hard on their own behalf. We have the tobacco barons fighting hard now to keep the existing law. I hope the House will be prepared to fight the tobacco barons as our predecessors were prepared to fight the slave traders in the past.

  • Harold Lever – 1972 Speech on a National Coal Strike

    Harold Lever – 1972 Speech on a National Coal Strike

    The speech made by Harold Lever, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Trade, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1972.

    This is a grim hour for the mining community and, by the same token, for the people of the country, as I shall seek to show.

    It is some time since I have concentrated my mind on the affairs of the miners. Before the last Government ended I had the great privilege of being in charge of the National Coal Board and of mining affairs.

    In the past my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has been in charge of these matters for the Opposition. I wish that at this hour of crisis I could reproduce one fraction of the zeal and passion of my hon. Friend and the concern he showed for the miners in the period during which he had charge of this portfolio for the Opposition. In a sense, he has swapped his portfolio with me and he is now the Opposition’s leading spokesman on Europe. Whatever differences of view I may have with my hon. Friend on any other subjects, I certainly hope to convey to the House the concern which throughout the period of our opposition has been expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of our party for the miners of this country.

    It may be relevant to refer to my own experience with the miners. I have known them intimately over a period of years as a lawyer, but I met them more particularly in connection with my work at the Ministry of Technology. It might be thought from much that has been said that the miners are men who make exorbitant demands upon the community, that they are less socially responsible and socially conscious than the rest of the community. That has not been my experience. I do not want to sentimentalise, but my experience is that these men, who have been mistreated so badly by the people of this country and the arrangements of this country over so long a period, are among the most loyal to their craft and to their country that we possess.

    I met not exorbitance of demand but moderation, decency and reason. I met men at the modesty and reasonableness of whose demands I marvelled. I marvelled at their co-operation, at their loyalty to the grim taskmaster which their industry is, and the love and affection they have for that work and that industry and their loyalty to their comrades in the industry, a matter with which I will deal later.

    So the first question I must ask is, why have we a strike on our hands? For nearly half a century there has been no such general strike of the miners. Why today, in our more affluent society, have the miners been brought to a pitch of feeling where there is a general strike backed emotionally, whatever the ballot says, by every single man at the pits, in Scotland, Wales, Cumberland and the like?

    Mr. Skinner

    And their wives.

    Mr. Lever

    I do not approach the question in a censorious or arrogant spirit. In no country has anyone found a golden key to unlock the doors of the problem of determining wages and wage differentials between one trade and another. Therefore, no one has the right to speak with arrogance and overconfidence about particular settlements or ethical principles in determining either the total of money wage rates or the relative wages between one trade and another. Therefore, I certainly do not approach the question with a desire to make destructive criticism of the Government.

    But I must say at the outset that, having followed very closely what has taken place, I am amazed that the Minister should make the speech he did. He failed even for a moment to direct his mind to the central questions that should be troubling it and his conscience: why have we this strike on our hands; why have nearly 300,000 of the most patient, hardworking, hazard-risking men in our industrial society reached a point where they are prepared to jeopardise their future prospects of employment and submit themselves to immediate poverty and conflict to establish what they believe to be their rights? That question does not even appear to have crossed the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues who have been handling the matter.

    Why is it that patient, hardworking men of the calibre of the miners, to whom the right hon. Gentleman paid such generous tribute in opening, when he talked of their years of co-operation, of reasonableness, of loyalty to their craft, are now feeling a sense of outrage? The right hon. Gentleman has not even begun to attempt to understand this. Why is it that the men are prepared only with difficulty to obey their union’s order to attend to safety in the pits because of the strike which has been brought about?

    Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

    Everyone in the country regrets that the miners were 16th in the wages league table, but we are surprised that Labour hon. Members, who are now exclaiming so bitterly that nothing has been done by the present Government, when the miners are being brought up at least to sixth place, should have been so silent during their period of office, never saying a word about the matter then.

    Mr. Lever

    I like to be generous about interventions. However, they are no substitute for catching the eye of the Chair and treating the House to oratory, valuable or less valuable according to judgement.

    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—

    Mr. Burden

    Answer.

    Mr. Lever

    I will deal with all these questions in my own order if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.

    I now want to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Employment, who is to reply, why they think that the strike has been brought about. Has there been a sudden sea change in the character and quality of our mining population which, after nearly half a century including the past 25 years of patient co-operation, leads them to feel outraged at their situation and to feel that they have no alternative but to take strike action to secure some justice? The fact that we have no rules which can tell us exactly how we should seek to determine wages in any particular situation does not entitle us to retreat into rigidity and inflexibility.

    On the contrary, as we seek to evolve better ways of dealing with our problem of wages and the like, we must show the maximum respect to the well-tried principles of fair play, decency and candour while we seek in one way and another to improve the general bargaining situation and its consequences for our country. I shall not enter into controversy about what direction that will take. In the meantime, rigidity, inflexibility, coldness, rules of thumb evolved in the secrecy of Government Departments, are not the way in which to handle work-people with a grievance. Real and serious efforts to meet them man to man to examine their grievances and find out what may reasonably be done to deal with them are the order of the day.

    I shall try in the time at my disposal to deal with the major policy questions that were involved and seek to show that on every count the Government failed to apply ordinary candour, common sense and fair play in their treatment of the miners. I was rather shocked by the right hon. Gentleman. More than once in his speech he sought to trot out the weary argument about a 15 per cent. increase in coal prices if the miners’ demands had been granted in full. I shall not speak in detail about what should be granted, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, in spite of the synthetic indignation he mustered about the 15 per cent. increase, that no union entering into a bargaining situation states its original demand as being equivalent to what it finally accepts.

    What we are discussing is not whether the full demands of the miners should have been met but whether the Government and the Coal Board have made reasonable attempts to meet the miners’ legitimate grievances, whether the offer they have made is adequate to the situation, whether the manner in which they have approached and treated the work-people has been calculated to lead to peaceful co-operation with the workers, or whether it has been a manner cold, dictatorial, inflammatory and provocative. I shall seek to show that all those adjectives are justified. I am very reluctant to use them.

    There are three major points of policy to which I want to refer and to which the strike situation relates: first, the Government’s relations with nationalised industries and public services; second, regional policy; third, the general economic strategy for dealing with the country’s economic needs, which includes the questions of inflation, wages and unemployment. As to the Government’s position in relation to public service industries, I must say first that I acknowledge that in any matters affecting public servants directly in the public service or in nationally-owned industries, the Government have a special responsibility to use their influence in a way which they believe is conducive to the overall economic advantage of the country. I do not believe that the Government can say, should say or do say, “This is a matter for the National Coal Board. If it feels like offering more, it can do so. If it does not, that is too bad.” That is humbug, and it is very important that that kind of humbug should not be allowed to poison relations between the N.C.B. and the men or between any nationalised industry and its employees by failure of candour. The Government should come out into the open and state quite openly and perfectly reputably that they have an interest in the wage negotiations, and that it is the determining interest in the present circumstances as to what the settlement shall be. But with that interest goes a responsibility not only for candour but a responsibility to do what is constructive and is likely to lead to an agreement if one is possible.

    How do we reconcile that with the way in which the negotiations have been conducted? The Government have not attempted to influence negotiations from a sense of responsibility and a helpful and constructive attitude. They have attempted nothing less than a diktat on the Coal Board and the miners as to the limits of any advance that can be made in the miners’ wages. That is the fact. Everybody knows that it is the fact. Everybody knows that the ceiling on the advance offered to the miners by the Board has been fixed by the Government, and the fact that the Government discreetly say nothing about it is because they fail to observe the rule of candour.

    The Government then become responsible for meeting the leaders. They are responsible for bringing about settlements in private industry where their good offices make it possible. But what about the coal strike? I have never listened to such dishonest pretence belatedly come to as the pretence that the request to Joe Gormley to meet the officials of the Department of Employment was the delicate and timid beginnings of the wish of the Secretary of State for Employment to be allowed to intervene in the dispute. That bogus and belated pretence for what was in fact an act of deliberate official discourtesy, of deliberately disclaiming the Minister’s intention to intervene, is particularly difficult to swallow.

    What in fact happened was that on the eve of the strike officials of the Department telephoned Mr. Gormley and asked him, “Would you come across and see us?” He replied, “Of course, I should like to see the Minister, but why should I come across to see you? What do you want?” They said, “We want to be filled in on some of the facts of the dispute.” We must stretch romanticism to an extreme degree if we are to believe that the officials of the Department really have to leave it to the eve of a strike before they want to be filled in. What they wanted to do was to sound out the officials of the mineworkers’ union without taking the moral commitment which the Minister should have taken, and undertaking to preside over negotiations with a constructive purpose. I hope that the Secretary of State does not repeat that balderdash tonight, seriously telling us that the miners are at fault for there not being a meeting with him because his own timid first approach to them received the brush-off. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is in command of plain English. He has often shown himself to be. If he wanted to talk to the miners’ leaders and get them round a table with a view to constructive talks, why in heaven’s name did he not just telephone himself and ask Mr. Gormley to come?

    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)

    The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in interventions by the Department under various Ministers of both parties in the past it has been very common for talks in a dispute to start with officials and lead on to other things. Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that it is common procedure in these matters to start by inviting the parties to come together on neutral territory to give the full background? Is he not aware that only a few weeks previously those tactics led to the settlement of the Coventry tool room dispute?

    Mr. Lever

    I take it that the right hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of his right hon. Friend who, in answer to a complaint that the Minister had not called the men round the table to talk about their problems with him, claimed that this official approach was quite obviously the beginning of the Minister calling them together. When the right hon. Gentleman saw that the offer of the officials was not regarded in the extraordinary way in which he appears to have expected, why did he not remedy this by a simple application of his voice to the telephone to call the men together? Why has he not done so now? It is part of the dictatorial, insensitive attitude of the Government throughout the dispute.

    As I have said, none of us has the right to be dogmatic or arrogant about how wage disputes should be settled, but the rule-of-thumb, dictatorial arrogance of the Government in this dispute comes particularly ill from a Government which before it was elected made great play of the high unemployment figures and the high cost of living increases not being adequately compensated for by wages. We heard a lot about that before the Government came to office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale reminded me a few weeks ago, Disraeli once said—he must have had a Conservative Government in mind—that one should not compare too closely the hours of courtship with the years of possession. The Government now have a very different attitude, and have failed to attempt to influence in a constructive way, even in the style of the conduct of the negotiations, this grim dispute.

    Mr. Loughlin rose—

    Mr. Lever

    I applaud my hon. Friend’s attempts to intervene in the speech of the Minister, which I found very understandable, but I hope he will allow me to make my points.

    Another example of the Government’s attitude in these negotiations, provocative and negative, is that the right hon. Gentlemen cited with apparent approval one of the greatest blunders I can recall in industrial relations, that on the eve of this grim strike, the Coal Board told the miners that the offer it had made to them would necessarily not be open if they persisted in their strike. That is like saying, “You take our diktat or, if you fight, you will not get what we have acknowledged is a minimum fair deal”. Analysed, this is a simple call to the miners for unconditional surrender. I never thought it was a particularly valuable strategy when applied to our Nazi enemies whom we were fighting in 1939, but when it is applied to the mining community of our country it is worse than bad strategy; it is a deeply dishonourable act as a reward to people who, as the Minister has admitted, have co-operated through the grim years of the contraction of the industry to seek to keep its viability.

    Apart from the superficial acknowledgement traditional to the miners and their union, the Minister has said not a word to show that the Government recognise that miners have a special and individual case. All work people have a special and individual case, but no such individual case has been considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I must weary him a little by telling him what he appears not to recognise. He has not taken any steps, so far as I can discover from any words he has spoken this afternoon or from anything which the Government have said, even to begin to understand the feelings of the miners and the case they feel they have.

    As everybody acknowledges, the miners do hard, dangerous and unhealthy work. There was a substantial correction in the post-war status of the miners which led to the miners being at the top of the league instead of in the miserable position they had been in before the war. This was not an inappropriate correction brought about by accident in post-war circumstances; it was a long overdue act of justice by society to correct the abominable treatment the mining community had endured for a long period.

    In my dealings with miners I have been struck not only by their straight-forwardness and courage but by their entire good temper and lack of bitterness about past history which so often bedevils relations in other trades. The miners appear to be able to forget the mis-treatment to which they were subjected in the years before the war, and that is to their credit. But if we forget it, it will be much to our dishonour, and the Government appear totally to have forgotten the long record of the miners both before and after the war. Their status has gone. Their average wages have declined in relation to other people’s. Over the last four years, even on averages, there has been a loss of real wages to the miners. Over a few months, if the offer had been accepted, their wages might have kept up with the recent changes in prices, but over four years the miners have not only watched a relative decline in their status but an actual decline in their real standards of life.

    The averages are not very instructive. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) who knows far more about this than I do, to deal with the details when he winds up the debate for the Opposition. Many men are taking home disgracefully low wages by any standards for skilled or unskilled men. The average is inflated. Some miners in certain circumstances are performing superhuman feats of overtime to earn high wages, and this distorts the picture of what the average man is getting. Those who earn overtime in the pits, earn it hard. Many of them work 12 hours a day underground to receive wages which are quite commonplace in industries outside the pits for full overtime. But that is not the lot of the average man.

    What is worse is that this decline which the miners have witnessed and about which they feel keenly arises in part because their union, rightly, in the long-term interests of the miners and the industry, sought to co-operate with the Government and the Coal Board in dealing with the problems that beset a declining industry. They have simplified the wage structure. The bonuses, piecework rates and all the complexities which, for example, bedevil the motor industry, have been eliminated in the mining industry thanks to the miners and their union. When the motor workers are asked to do this they refuse because they say that at the end of the day by one means or another, if they make this sacrifice to logic and industrial advantage, they will be cheated. The miners have suffered as a result of their co-operation and not gained by it. So the right hon. Gentleman and the Coal Board are putting a premium on non-co-operation in simplifying wage structures.

    The miners’ union and the men have agreed to the shuffling of jobs whereby skilled men take on unskilled jobs at low wages so as to find a niche for themselves in this declining industry. The miners and the union have co-operated with the Coal Board in the agonising problems of redundancy that have arisen in these last few years when the number employed has shrunk to little more than one-third of the strength a relatively few years ago.

    I am appalled that yet again today we hear that the miners will injure their prospects, and that they should be warned about competitive fuels—nuclear power, oil and the like—as if this were the miners’ problem from which the Government dissociate themselves. I do not claim any special virtues as a Minister, but I should be ashamed, at the maximum moment of friction with the miners, whatever difference we had, if ever by one word or hint I did not identify with their grim anxieties, not only about what they have had to suffer in the past but about the difficulties they are likely to have to meet in the future.

    The Government say, “You will injure yourselves”, as if it were the concern of the miners alone and not of the Government. I did not hear this from the Minister when he spoke and I should like to hear the Government say, with humility, that, whatever differences divide them and the miners in this dispute, they share and identify with the anxieties and difficulties of the miners in the declining industry situation with which they are faced. This warning must not be used as a leverage to support a Government diktat.

    The Government have wholly ignored the regional aspects of the problem. Seventy per cent. of the miners work in depressed regions or regions of high unemployment. What asinine behaviour it is to go searching around these areas of high unemployment to find some emergency means of giving more employment while, on the other hand, exercising self-righteous pedantry in keeping down the buying power of the miners to a point where it leads to a disruptive strike with the consequences which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

    This is a prescription, if we are to believe him, for more unemployment in this region of high unemployment. Having refused the miners a modest and flexible response to their demands for wage increases on the ground that this would threaten the economy, the Government would rather have a strike which will add in the long run to unemployment in areas of high unemployment. If ever there was an area where there should be some flexibility and response to wage demands it is an area of high unemployment, because by making that response the buying power of the wage earners in that area would be increased. I am not saying that this justifies an unlimited increase, but it certainly justifies a far more flexible approach than the Government have shown. This should have been kept in mind, but we have not heard a word from the Minister or from the Government about the regional aspects of this problem.

    Another matter on which the Minister might at least have treated us to his views is the financial structure of the Coal Board, which was saddled at the outset with the cost of taking over the mines. I will not reflect on the 1945 Labour Government by suggesting that we unknowingly overpaid for the mines, but we can say that a very handsome payment was made for the neglected collieries of those days. If I may put on a private entrepreneurial hat for the moment, it is not a payment which I would have thought reasonable to pay. The Coal Board and the miners have been saddled with the burden. I say “the miners” because every time the miners want a wage increase they are referred to the balance sheet and told that there is interest to be paid on that huge debt before anyone can think of paying more wages.

    Mr. Richard Kelley (Don Valley)

    Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if the Coal Board was allowed to fix prices according to ordinary commercial criteria it would be in a different position today, approaching this terrible calamity? It would then be able to measure the demands of its employees against the price it might be able to charge for its products in the commercial market.

    Mr. Lever

    My hon. Friend has a good point, but the point that I am seeking to make is that instead of being allowed to pursue commercial criteria the Board has been saddled with this debt which is unrealistic, particularly in a declining industry. The debt is already too high in relation to the assets, but in the nature of a declining industry those assets have been vanishing and so the miners are servicing a debt on machines which are no longer in use, covering pits which have been long closed down. In 1965 my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) wrote off a substantial sum, but that is nearly seven years ago.

    I want to know why we cannot write off a great deal more of the debt in view of all the closures that have taken place since then. This is where I complain of the Minister’s attitude. He ought to be aware, and to show awareness, of these things. The charge per ton by way of interest is higher today than it was before my right hon. Friend wrote off the debt. In terms of the burden on the miners and the industry the weight of debt is greater on the contracted industry of 1972 than before. Since the right hon. Gentleman does not want to push up prices but wants to do justice by the miners, why cannot he perform this elementary act of financial justice that would automatically have been provided for in the accounts of any private firm, and write off a substantial part of the debt interests?

    That interest amounts to about the same amount in total as the total offer made by the Board. If the Government make a serious incursion into this debt they will find themselves with some millions available which would provide the facilities to make a flexible response to the miners without adding a penny to the price of coal.

    This coal strike must be seen as part of general policy which cannot be acceptable to us. It is a policy of selective pressure on the public sector while, if there is any pressure at all on the private sector, it is applied in a very different way. We cannot say to the public sector as the Minister sought to say today, “You must make a sacrifice in your legitimate claims because we are trying to protect prices and the public.” We cannot say that to miners and public servants if we are not attempting some control over other people’s wages. The Government remind me of an old music-hall song in a rather obvious way, which used to go something like this:

    “When I’m not near the girl I love, I love the girl I’m near.”

    I do not say that the Government love the public industries—I acquit them of that charge—but when they cannot control the wage rises they would most like to control they control the wages of those where they are a monopoly employer, where they are backed by an unlimited public purse.

    This is not good enough. We cannot expect one-sided sacrifices by public servants and State industries when they are not being protected. We will end up with a situation where there is an undeclared incomes policy diktat in the public sector and a million unemployed in the private sector. For us this is not an acceptable policy.

    Mr. R. Carr

    I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would advocate as an incomes policy.

    Mr. Lever

    The right hon. Gentleman has chosen his moment of interrogation well. I can hardly expect the House to allow me to enlarge on what is, as I admitted, a very difficult question. Sometimes it is possible to express a certain humility as to how we may achieve what is right and comprehensive but that does not mean that one forfeits one’s right, when one sees plainly wrong things being done, to denounce such things. Whatever a right incomes policy may he, and I have every sympathy with this or any other Government in thinking out and groping for one, if it is done with a little humility and compassion I welcome it.

    One thing is quite clear and it is that what I have described as a diktat in the public sector—the risk of grim strikes, poverty and the ruin of one of our great industries with consequential damage to the people of the country—is not a policy for incomes. Nor is it a substitute for neglect in the private sector to claim proudly that that sector now has a million unemployed threatening it. It is no good saying, “If we cannot dictate to them when we are not a monopoly employer we can at least provide an overhang of a million unemployed.”

    What is to be done? Are we really to go on with the attitude shown by the Minister today, of pious sermonising, or are the Government at long last going to get them round a table and start talking flexibly and intelligently with the miners in a real effort to understand why they feel as they do, why they are incensed and why they are prepared to suffer as they are likely to suffer, have already started suffering—they and their families? Do the Government believe that these men are their fellow citizens, in line with the panegyric with which the Minister began his speech? If they do, then the only honourable thing they can do is to get them round a table.

    I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that the alternative is a fight to a finish and it is one which no one will relish when it starts. There are two possibilities in theory. One is that we would achieve a dishonourable victory with a trail of bitterness, and beat the miners back to work, as happened in 1926. The other is that we will achieve a ruinous defeat because the miners are not the kind of people the Government seem to believe them to be. These are among the most loyal and determined men we have. These are the yeomen of England, Scotland and Wales. These are the men who rarely turn against their fellow men. I once said in this House when I had the honour and privilege of being a Minister dealing with their affairs that the thing that struck me most about the miners was their open-facedness. They had the faces of men who have spent long years wrestling in comradeship against the grim hazards of nature, not wriggling foxily, determined to outwit their fellow men. These are not men who by nature are aggressive or eager to injure their fellow men.

    Their record proves to the contrary. If they feel their cause to be righteous, if they feel they are being subjected to a humiliating diktat by a Government which has totally failed to understand their grievances, they will fight and fight until not only they suffer but our whole country suffers. I do not believe the people of the country are prepared to stand idly by and watch an attempted re-enactment of the terrible experiences of 1926.

    It is my privilege on behalf of my party to pledge that we will not stand idly by and that we stand solidly behind the miners in their sense of grievance and intend, as we believe the whole of the trade union movement intends, to support them in their efforts to secure justice. In doing so we we will be giving expression to the deepest wishes of the great majority of forward-looking people in this country irrespective of party.

  • John Davies – 1972 Statement on a National Coal Strike

    John Davies – 1972 Statement on a National Coal Strike

    The statement made by John Davies, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1972.

    The issue of a national coal strike, which we are debating today, provokes inevitably depths of feeling and concern that go even beyond the serious industrial facts that are involved.

    There are many reasons for this—the character of the industry, with its ruggedness and dangers; the men who work in it and who rightly evoke our sympathy and admiration; the historical place that the industry holds in the whole evolution of British industry; the special links it has with this House; the numbers of people involved and their unity and union membership; the remarkable history of the National Union of Mineworkers; and the impact that the industry has on every section of the community, geographically, industrially, socially and domestically.

    This catalogue by no means exhausts the many reasons why the events that have recently occurred elicit a response throughout the country which is perhaps more profound and emotional than the plain industrial issues involved. But even on the level of the plain industrial issues, so much is at stake that we must try to see clearly and understand how those problems have arisen and what are the wider national issues that surround them, how they are likely to affect the life of the country and, perhaps most important of all, what their consequences may be for the industry and those who work in it.

    Perhaps it is right to consider first that last question—the consequences for the industry itself. It is necessary to look at the recent history of the industry to do this—at its prospects and problems and how it is surmounting them and at its future outlook.

    By any standards, the radical transformation which the industry has undergone in the last decade is a matter for admiration and approval. It has squared up to the realities of its competitive position and has acknowledged the need to modernise and streamline itself. It has done this with there having been a remarkable degree of understanding between management and unions. It has set about this process by making a dramatic reduction in manpower and a vast modernisation effort in plant to reduce the advantage that other newer primary fuels, such as oil and natural gas and even the nuclear generation of electricity, enjoyed.

    Successive Governments have supported this transformation by writing off accumulated losses and by affording some degree of protection through the fuel duty and other measures, recognising both the social factors involved and the security ones in comparing an indigenous source of fuel with the need to import.

    The combination of these efforts gave rise to a sustained improvement in productivity throughout the ‘sixties, though by 1969, to the dismay of those who wished to see the industry endure and prosper, that effort seemed to be running out of steam, and the last two years regretfully have seen the rate of improvement dwindle and disappear.

    After the great write off of accumulated losses in 1965 of £415 million the industry has endured further losses to the tune of £34 million, but the prospects were brighter and, with competitive fuels increasing in cost, there was hope of turning the corner into profitability.

    Despite the damaging impact of unofficial action this year, 1970–71 saw a marginal profit of £½ million and hopes were high that 1971–72 would carry that ahead into continuing surplus. Those hopes are now dashed with the expectation that the present strike will be pushing the Board into deficit at the rate of £10 million a week over and above the £20 million already arising from the last two months’ overtime ban.

    This damaging turnround in the Board’s prospects arises at a time when some of the surrounding factors are tending to reduce the critical importance of coal production as an element of security in our national fuel picture. Imported oil, it is true, has been getting substantially more expensive and that tendency may well continue, but large reserves of oil have been found round our own shores and the outlook for these secure sources of highly competitive fuel is suddenly looking rather bright.

    Gas, too, has been found in substantial quantities and coal-gas is becoming rapidly a thing of the past. Nuclear power, after the inevitable uncertainties of the early days of a revolutionary new process, will now be settling down to sustained and ever more economic power generation. [Interruption.] It will. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but they had to be concerned with this issue when they were in office. They therefore know that I am right. This process is settling down to a sustained improvement in performance.

    Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

    The right hon. Gentleman sought to praise the miners, but now he is seeking to threaten them.

    Mr. Davies

    No, I am not.

    Mr. Eadie

    The right hon. Gentleman is. Can he produce evidence to show that there is an abundance of cheap oil or that nuclear power is not escalating in price, apart from being obsessed with technical difficulties?

    Mr. Davies

    I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not in any way threatening the miners. I am simply seeking to establish the realities facing the industry. As for access to oil supplies, the hon. Gentleman will, bearing in mind the area from which he comes, not have failed to note the intention expressed by the B.P. Company not long ago relating to a very large resource of oil in the North Sea. That will be exploited as from now on at a high cost, and this will be available—[Interruption.]—at a very reasonable price.

    On the issue of nuclear generation, has not the hon. Gentleman realised that even at present Magnox reactors are able to produce electricity at a price well within supplies available from traditional fuels?

    Mr. Eadie

    What about A.G.R.?

    Mr. Davies

    I am referring to the Magnox reactor. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is producing economically. In these circumstances the future of coal depends on its ability to regain its productivity record of the ‘sixties and, above all, not to allow self-inflicted wounds to undermine its prospects for the future. It is for this reason that a crippling strike arising at this juncture is a cause of concern not just for the immediate difficulties and hardships it may occasion but for the irremediable damage it may do to all that has been so patiently and constructively achieved by a decade of harmony and collaboration.

    To the material losses there is also a risk of adding a legacy of bitterness from the strike itself—and this will increase the longer the strike endures—which will prove to be an obstacle to the resumption of the collaboration which is so essential if a renewal of productivity gain is to be achieved in the future, with all its immense importance for the competitiveness and resilience of the industry. Already we have seen signs of those actions which engender bitterness and leave an after-taste of sourness and distrust.

    When, for instance, I read of refusals to comply with the union’s own advice on the maintenance of safety measures, I am deeply distressed, not only by the immediate incident, but by its deeper and more enduring effect on the resumption of the joint endeavours that are so much needed for the future.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

    On this question of safety—

    Mr. Davies

    In speaking of safety measures I would wish to acknowledge the remarkable and untiring efforts of management, staff and officials in keeping the pits in working order at the present time. They are putting in long hours in an arduous and difficult task, and the capacity of the industry to get back again into production will in due course owe a great debt of gratitude to them.

    Mr. Skinner

    There has been a lot of clap-trap about so-called safety measures. In my opinion what the Board is really concerned about—and perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether this is true—is that there is £100 million worth of equipment down the pits belonging to the Board and private interests. The difference between 1926 and now is that instead of the equipment down the pits belonging to the men, it belongs to some other people. It is not really a question of safety. What the Board is really asking miners to do is to move the chocks along. It has nothing to do with safety. The object is to safeguard the money of private interests.

    Mr. Speaker

    Frequently there are complaints about the length of Front Bench speeches. It is interventions which frequently make them longer.

    Mr. Davies

    The plant to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in the pits is at the basis of the future of the industry, and the work that is involved in safeguarding it is important not just from the point of not suffering an unreasonable degree of waste, but also from the point of ensuring that there is continuing activity within the pits for the men to return to.

    With so much at stake, it is necessary to realise fully the events which have brought the industry to this unhappy pass. The union’s claim was presented in mid-September, and called for very large increases in pay ranging up to £9 a week which, if accorded, would have added about one-third to the Board’s wages bill, and would have added about 15 per cent. to existing price levels. Negotiations went on into mid-October, with the board advancing its offers from £1·60 a week for all, to £1·80 a week for the lowest paid surface workers, and £1·75 for other workers. That was rejected by the union which, on 21st October, withdrew from all consultative machinery, called for an overtime ban from 1st November, and in accordance with its rules instituted a ballot of its members with a view to calling a national strike.

    That ballot commenced a month later, and on 2nd December the result was announced which gave the executive discretion to call a national strike by a vote of 58·8 per cent. in favour, a proportion which, in parenthesis, I should point out would not have been sufficient before July of last year to give such discretion—[Interruption.] In the intervening period a resolution was passed to reduce the requisite number in favour from 65 per cent. to 55 per cent.

    Throughout the remainder of December and early January further efforts were made by the Board to find a formula acceptable to the union, but it failed. Almost on the very eve of the strike the Chairman of the National Coal Board made a last-minute attempt to reach a settlement and met the full executive of the N.U.M. at its headquarters. At that meeting every effort was made to avert the strike which was clearly in nobody’s interest. The Board advanced its offer still further to £2 a week for the lower paid and £1·90 for the others, together with an additional 5 days holidays, and including a special productivity arrangement.

    It should be noted that the last offer was never the subject of a ballot, and it is at least open to question whether, with the narrow majority giving the executive discretion to call a strike at the lower level, there would still have been the requisite majority not merely to give discretion but actually to implement a strike at the higher. [HON. MEMBERS:” Rubbish.”] I say that it is at least open to question.

    In the face of the rejection of its latest offer and the firm intention of the union’s executive to proceed with the strike, as notified, on 9th January the Board withdrew its offer on the grounds that the financial situation of the Board must inevitably be damaged by the strike, that it could not expect therefore to be in a position to sustain the latest offer from such a worsened position, and that when the parties resumed their contact—as they inevitably must—the situation would have to be approached in the new conditions which would then be prevailing.

    The Board estimated that its latest offer amounted to slightly less than 8 per cent. of its wages bill, and that was equivalent to pre-empting a 2 cwt.—almost 5 per cent.—increase in productivity. Before the final rupture came the Board on 5th January proposed to submit the dispute to the National Reference Tribunal, but the N.U.M. would not agree. A similar plea by the Board last week was again rejected. However, I understand that earlier today the T.U.C. approached both sides in an endeavour to bring them together and that the N.C.B. and the N.U.M. have now agreed to take part in a meeting tomorrow. I hope that that initiative will lead to useful results. There was a murmur, why did we not do something? I recall to hon. Gentlemen opposite that my right hon. Friend said earlier at Question Time that an endeavour was made but it was refused by the N.U.M. A few facts are worth establishing about pay levels in the industry.

    First, the nearly 8 per cent. final offer of the Board, on top of last year’s 12 per cent. gives an overall increase materially in excess of the movement of living costs over the period involved. Second, the cost of the final offer would have been about £31 million, and that has to be set against an accumulated deficit of £34 million, a break-even in 1970–71, and a hoped-for surplus in 1971–72 already undermined by the overtime ban.

    Within the increase the lowest paid workers would have had an 11 per cent. advance to add to the 20 per cent. they received in November 1970. Most face workers would have been on £31·90 had the final offer been accepted, thus exceeding substantially the parity of £30 already attained under the National Power Loading agreement, and involving for about 69,000 workers increases of up to £2.77½ per week, to which the £1.90 of the offer would have been added. The T.U.C.’s target of a £20 minimum wage would have been attained for the industry, lifting mineworkers in this respect from sixteenth to sixth place in the league table of minimum rates and placing them on the same level as dockers.

    I have seen and heard references in the Press and elsewhere to cases of individuals taking home as little as £13. The Board has circulated to Members information which shows how misleading those reports are. When cases have been investigated it has often been found that deductions for rent and National Savings were comprised within the figures to arrive at the figure for take-home pay.[HON. MEMBERS: “Rubbish.”] It is absolutely exact. I need not repeat what the House will already have read, but it is worth stressing that the take-home pay of an adult married face worker with no children would have been just under £24 had this offer been accepted.

    Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

    Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are miners with families qualifying for the Family Income Supplement?

    Mr. Davies

    I am not able to deny it, but that is because I do not have those facts before me. I will readily and willingly look into that question.

    The Board has worked out—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite ask for facts. I am seeking simply to state the facts. The Board has worked out that average adult earnings for the week ending 9th October, 1971, were in excess of £30, including allowances in kind amounting to some £2.

    Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)

    The right hon. Gentleman has given figures for October. Will he now give figures for a period in November or December when the overtime ban was operating? The wages in the period he has quoted resulted from miners working many hours of overtime.

    Mr. Davies

    That is all entirely irrelevant to the question of the real pay in the industry. The industry is working to a certain pattern of overtime the suppression of which has caused the industry grievous damage, as I have already said. The fact is that the average earnings in October, when normal working was being pursued, was at this substantial level.

    It has been suggested that the Government should step in and by some means compensate the Board to enable it to make a higher settlement than its own financial position and prospects make possible. However, against the facts I have mentioned about the offer and the level of pay in the industry, such a step would have been manifestly irresponsible. The final offer compares favourably with many recent settlements in both public and private sectors, and to subsidise an increase in it would be flying in the face of all the efforts that the Government are making to contain inflation and reduce the damaging rise in prices. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are never hesitant about demanding the containment of prices, yet they are never prepared to meet the requirements for doing so. The efforts that the Government are making have had, and are continuing to have, a considerable measure of success.

    Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

    Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that, if the miners’ wage demand were conceded in full, it would lead to a very large increase in the retail price of coal, all of which would render the product entirely uncompetitive and cause a large part of the existing market for coal to disappear?

    Mr. Davies

    I have said that the effect of acceding to the total proposal of the National Union of Mineworkers would have been to increase coal prices by 15 per cent. which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, would have put coal rightly out of the field of competition.

    So here we are witnessing a damaging strike liable to cause great inconvenience, and even hardship, to the community and great damage to the industry itself.

    Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Davies

    No, I will not.

    Mr. Loughlin

    Then why did the right hon. Gentleman give way to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)?

    Mr. Speaker

    Order.

    Mr. Loughlin

    Will the Secretary of State give way now?

    Mr. Davies

    No, I am not giving way.

    Mr. Loughlin

    As the right hon. Gentleman gave way to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, he should give way to someone on this side.

    Mr. Speaker

    Order.

    Mr. Loughlin

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. I have already said that there is always a great deal of complaint about the length of Front Bench speeches. Continual interventions simply protract Front Bench speeches. I want to be able to call a large number of Opposition Members who wish to speak. I ask the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) not to protract the proceedings.

    Mr. Loughlin

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry that you should think that I am protracting the debate, or at any rate the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way to a very favourable intervention from one of his hon. Friends it is abject cowardice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if he will not give way to what may be a not so favourable intervention.

    Mr. Speaker

    The hon. Gentleman is on a rather bad and unfair point, because the Secretary of State had already given way to two very hostile interventions.

    Mr. Davies

    I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) but, as you say, Mr. Speaker, I have given way on a number of occasions and not by any means always to amicable interventions either.

    So here we are witnessing a damaging strike liable to cause great inconvenience, and even hardship, to the community and great damage to the industry itself, for causes which, on the statement of facts I have listed, do not seem to justify the action which has been taken. At present the impact on the community as a whole is slight and patchy. Stocks are reasonably high throughout the country, but there are bound to be difficulties for some firms and in some places. It would be some weeks before there begins to be real difficulty. The steel industry is likely to be among the first to be hit, with all the damaging effect that that will have on production, exports and employment.

    My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry took immediate action to enjoin economy on distributors and fuel users alike the day after the strike started. In case further measures had to be taken, the Government are keeping the situation continually under review.

    I earnestly hope, however, that matters will not deteriorate in such a way as to make further action necessary. The very future of the industry and of the employment it provides is at stake. It would be tragic if, with the prospect of a better future for coal in view, irreparable damage were now done, with all the unhappy consequences—industrial, personal and social—that would inescapably ensue.

  • Harold Gurden – 1972 Speech on Home Ownership and Right to Buy

    Harold Gurden – 1972 Speech on Home Ownership and Right to Buy

    The speech made by Harold Gurden, the then Conservative MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1972.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to the tenants of dwellings owned by local authorities and other housing bodies the right to acquire the ownership or leasehold of their homes.

    Public ownership of housing, extended as it has been over the years under both parties, with additional controls on building and other housing regulations, in the opinion of many people and many experts, has accentuated the housing shortage. Many of these regulations were designed to cure the housing shortage, but some of us believe that they have only made matters worse. The object of this Bill is to “denationalise” family homes. However much one believes in nationalisation as a principle, surely the family home should be exempt.

    This is nationalisation in a most discriminatory form—against only the lower wage earners and the workers of this country, because the better-off can and do own their own homes. Few people, and fewer politicians, ever declare themselves opposed to the principle of a property-owning democracy. My own party has made this a very important part of its policy. Yet we have all allowed public authorities to deny nearly half Britain’s families the right to buy their homes.

    These are the homes provided by the taxpayers and ratepayers by means of subsidy. It is true that some local authorities in control of council houses permit tenants to buy their homes, but they are not in the main enthusiastic about it and many local authorities do not allow tenants to do so. There are now millions of families in this category, and in future they may never be allowed to buy their own homes. This will affect families from one generation to the next.

    This situation is clearly a class discrimination if ever there was one. It applies only to the lower income groups. Nearly all the higher income groups own their own homes. The tenant families and the working classes under both parties have had to accept constantly rising rents, and the Housing Finance Bill uses the Labour Party’s fair rent principle to increase the rents only partly to cover the cost to the tenant. So unless these tenants have the right freely to buy their own homes, they can never peg the cost of their home against inflation. The best way for a householder to insure himself against rising rents is to buy his home: it is better than a rise in wages.

    Also to be considered is the pride of ownership in one’s own home, the incentives that there are to improve one’s property and enhance its value. The Government’s improvement grants are freely available and are used mostly by home owners. It is easy for most of us to recognise property which is owner-occupied as we go about the country. In Birmingham, in my own constituency in particular, urban deterioration is a serious problem, but was made less acute by home ownership. It is or should be an essential part of our policy to create home ownership if we are to defeat urban deterioration.

    Another consideration is the mobility of labour. In our large cities, many unemployed are unable even to consider taking a job at the other side of the town, for the sole reason that they are municipal tenants and do not find it easy to move home. Changing a tenancy is far too slow and uncertain. If a job is offered to an unemployed man at the other side of a city as large as Birmingham, he has to think twice about accepting. I believe that many of our unemployed would not be restricted in their choice of job if they could sell their home and buy another.
    I have carried out some research on this matter and the best estimate that I can make is that about 10 per cent. of the people in the home owner belt are mobile and do change their homes in any one year, whereas only about 2 per cent. of the people in council-owned properties move.

    This leads one to assume that the security of tenure of having a municipal house is the main incentive, rather than employment. A man can easily get social security and unemployment pay, but he cannot easily get another house. This Bill is based on the Leasehold Reform Act, which was supported by both parties, to ensure specifically the right for people to own their own homes. The Bill carries this principle one stage further.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) initiated a debate just before the recess which was very valuable and saves me having to mention many of the facts of the situation which we should be considering and which I hope will be considered in debate.

    Why should city councillors prevent home ownership? I am told that, in Bristol, an alderman voted against the city council allowing tenants to buy their homes, and after that vote went to the local authority and bought his own municipal house, before the city council could change the rules—

    Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

    On a point of order. This cannot be in order, surely, in initiating a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, which has overstayed its time.

    Mr. Speaker

    These are matters for me.

    Mr. Gurden

    All I ask today is the right to debate this matter in the House. Any criticisms of the Bill—of its principle or any matters relating to it—can be debated at a later stage to the benefit of millions of people in this country.

  • Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on India and Pakistan

    Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on India and Pakistan

    The speech made by Denis Healey, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1972.

    First, I should like to join in welcoming, as the Foreign Secretary did, the wise statesmanship of President Bhutto in releasing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and sharing in his wish for close and friendly relations with the new Government of Bangladesh. I think that the whole House will want to take this opportunity to wish the people of the new State a peaceful and prosperous future after the tragic ordeal through which they have passed in recent years.

    I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary two questions. First, many of us will be disappointed that the Government do not feel in a position to give diplomatic recognition to the new Government of Bangladesh. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the real reason is that he is seeking to arrange for the largest possible number of European and Commonwealth Governments to give diplomatic recognition at the same time and that this is well understood by Sheikh Mujibur himself?

    Secondly, on the question of economic aid, the Foreign Secretary will recognise that the scale of aid required for the new State will dwarf in magnitude even that required to deal with the problem of the refugees in India not so long ago. Will he assure the House that he will meet what I am certain is the unanimous wish that Britain should take the lead in organising international support of the new State as we took the lead, under the right hon. Gentleman’s initiative, in dealing with the earlier problem?

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on India and Pakistan

    Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on India and Pakistan

    The statement made by Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1972.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    Since the House rose, the hostilities between India and Pakistan have ended. On 21st December the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution demanding the strict observance of this cease-fire and the withdrawal of armed forces as soon as practicable. We played a full part in the negotiations leading up to this resolution, and we voted for it.

    A new pattern of relationships is now emerging. In Pakistan, President Bhutto has taken over the Government In congratulating him on this appointment my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear our wish for close and friendly relations. One of President Bhutto’s first deeds was to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman without conditions. This was a most statesmanlike act.

    In the East, normal life is returning and the refugees are beginning to go back to their homes. There are reports that well over 1 million have already done so . Since Sheikh Mujib’s return a new Government has been set up composed of those who were elected in the general election of December, 1970.

    On his way home, Sheikh Mujib passed through London and we were glad to welcome him. He paid a private courtesy call on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and expressed his desire for close co-operation and friendship between his people and this country. As he was anxious to return to Dacca as quickly as possible, a Royal Air Force aircraft was put at his disposal.

    Sheikh Mujib also expressed his wish to remain on good terms with Pakistan, but made it clear that there could be no question of a formal link. President Bhutto, for his part, has proposed further discussions between the East and the West.

    The new Government in Dacca appears to be firmly established. The Indian Army is still in the East, but Sheikh Mujib has made it clear that this is by his will and that the soldiers will be with drawn when he deems it necessary.

    I am keeping the question of recognition under close consideration and am in touch with a number of Commonwealth and other Governments. I hope to be able to make another statement on this question in the near future.

    British lives and property have been affected by the war. As I informed the House on 13th December, seven United Kingdom citizens were killed in a British ship in Karachi. Since the end of hostilities we have come to know that three United Kingdom citizens were killed in an attack on a Pakistan vessel in which they were serving. British property suffered some damage, including the tea estates in the East. But the British firms affected in both the East and the West are anxious to resume operations and assist in the task of rehabilitation.

    Many problems remain. In the East the authorities are faced with an immense task of reconstruction. We shall want to play a full part in helping with these problems. We are trying, through the United Nations and other agencies, to establish the needs and priorities, and we discussed the question with Sheikh Mujib when he was in London. There still remains unspent about £1 million of our contribution to the United Nations for emergency relief. I am happy to announce that we have now decided to provide a further £1 million for relief in the area. In the West we have also told President Bhutto of our willingness to do what we can to help. The possibility of new aid is one of the questions which we shall be discussing with the President of the World Bank when he is in London this week.

    I am sure that all Members will agree that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the events which led up to this tragic conflict, the need now is to help the parties concerned to work together to solve the many problems of the subcontinent.

  • Peter Mills – 1972 Speech on North Sea Gas

    Peter Mills – 1972 Speech on North Sea Gas

    The speech made by Peter Mills, the then Conservative MP for Torrington, in the House of Commons on 17 January 1972.

    I wish to bring to the attention of the House some of the problems that have been faced by some of my constituents in North Devon and Crediton in connection with the conversion to North Sea gas.

    I welcome the change to natural gas and I acknowledge that benefit will accrue from the change. However, many unnecessary problems have arisen, and I air this issue because, while it may be too late to help some of my constituents, others may benefit from the mistakes that have been made. It is to be hoped that the gas board will profit from the mistakes it has made, even though it is a nationalised industry.

    I could quote many examples. I have received scores of telephone calls, letters and visits from constituents. Their representations have been passed to the gas board.

    The Chairman of the Northam Urban District Council says this:

    “I feel that it should be brought to your notice that a large number of people in my District are enraged at the incompetent preparations for our conversion to Natural Gas. Wrong parts were delivered and in many cases no parts arrived at all, and as a result many dwellings are without proper cooking and heating facilities for a week.”

    Even now some dwellings are unconverted in spite of continual requests for help. Many empty flats, chalets and caravans were completed first, leaving those who needed it, the priority ones, last.

    “In consequence considerable hardship has been caused. This is in marked contrast to the confident assurances given to my Council when one of your publicity officers addressed us some weeks ago.”

    I come to some individual cases. There is a Mr. Bawden, of Penqueen Place, Crediton. His gas fire had been condemned. He was told that up to 18 months ago it could have been converted, but not now. Unfortunately for him, he is 71 years old and a pensioner, and he cannot afford a new gas fire.

    There are some old people living in an old people’s home at 21 Aysha Gardens, Westward Ho. These are bungalows built six years ago, but the inhabitants are told that structural alterations are necessary before even a start can be made on the conversions. The estimated cost is £35 for each bungalow. These people cannot afford that.

    Another series of cases is from the Northam Residents’ Association. The association criticises the gas board and the operation very severely. It talks about the initial survey and says that some people were visited six times and others were left out altogether. It seems to be the root of the problem that in this very large area in North Devon the board failed to carry out the survey adequately and properly. My complaint is; why did the board start on this conversion before it had done the initial survey properly? It is no excuse to say that it could not get into various houses and, therefore, had problems later. Why start?

    Another rather pathetic case is an elderly man I have known for some time, a Mr. Lewis of Bideford. He thanks me that through my representations the board has at least called on him. But he has been informed that unless he is prepared to pay £52·50 nothing can be done. This is in contradiction, he says, to the brochures and to what I have told him—that in these cases the board will provide something. But it will not; it is £52 or he does not get his water heater. He has been without hot water for 12 weeks. It is an appalling situation.

    I could go on and on, but the worst case of all, with a lack of any sympathy or feeling by the gas board, astounds me. I received a letter from a home help concerning two elderly ladies. One of the ladies is 91; the other is 76.

    “Since November 15th, when the conversion to natural gas was commenced in this area, they have been without heating of any sort in their bedroom, and in this cold, wet weather it is a real hardship.”

    The home help says that this is especially so for the older lady.

    “Several different men have called, but nothing at all gets done, and I think it is disgusting to leave these two elderly people in this state for so long.”

    Can there be a worse case? It is appalling. So there are frustrated and angry people in my constituency.

    What annoys me even more is that on many occasions the gas board employees do not even bother to reply to the free phone which one is invited to ring to get some action. These things must not be allowed to happen again. It is true that the board, so it says, will convert where it can and will help by supplying a reconditioned appliance, as my hon. Friend says in his letter. However, the cases I have quoted prove that this is not always so, for some reason. It costs some people money. I suppose that the trade-in value of an old appliance is not very high and another appliance must be found, and for elderly people this is expensive. I understand, too, that portable gas fires cause a problem, and new ones must be bought.

    Then there is the problem with flues which are not up to standard. I mentioned the cost of renovating the flues in the old people’s home. Those running the home were quite happy to go on as they were before conversion. Conversion has been a very expensive business for them.
    I am sure that salesmen have brought pressure to bear on some people. After all, one way of exerting pressure is to create worry by saying, “We could do it, but there are problems, and it would be better to buy a new gas stove.” In this way they sell a new appliance. Old people, through reading about some of the problems arising from North Sea gas, are concerned and give in.

    Whatever the board says, I believe that some people have to pay. It is expensive, and pensioners can ill afford it. This is why I have written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, because further help must be given in some cases. Today I have received a reply from the Supplementary Benefits Commission which repeats the same story, that the board will always convert or will provide another appliance. That just is not true, as some elderly people know to their cost.

    Something must be done to ensure that this nonsense does not continue in the South-West or elsewhere.

    First, the South-Western Gas Consultative Council must not whitewash matters, as I believe it does at present. The council stands between the consumer and the board, and it must point out firmly and critically the faults the board makes. The Secretary of the council has been particularly helpful to me since I have been in contact with him and problems have been dealt with quickly.

    Second, I believe that the council must advertise so as to make it quite clear, through the medium of the local Press, what people are entitled to.

    Third, the survey must be done well and the conversion operation should not begin until the survey is completed. It is ludicrous to have a survey if it is not carried to completion and if the board does not find out what are the needs in each house.

    Fourth, letters from the board, particularly letters to the aged, must be more helpful. Some of the letters I have seen show a complete lack of any feeling of sympathy towards the elderly. I hope that the board will heed this and will be more helpful, rather than worry people.

    Fifth, the free phone must operate, or the entry should be taken from the telephone directory. What is the use of having a free phone if it does not work?

    Sixth, there must be a better performance by the private contractors, who have been doing most of this work. Perhaps showing the fault lies in lack of supervision by the board, but there is fault.

    Seventh, next, there should be more generous help for the retired and the elderly. After all, they did not ask for this conversion, and it creates problems.

    Lastly, because of the problems in North Devon and Crediton I believe that there should be an inquiry by the gas board into the reasons for these problems and why they have been so acute. All sorts of excuses have been made, such as the survey and the unusually high number of old appliances. Fair enough; but why start before one has the proper spares and all the facilities necessary to do the job?

    I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) wishes to say a few words, so I shall say no more. The gas board has made a mess in North Devon and in Crediton, and the lesson should be learned so that this can never happen again.

  • Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on Malta

    Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on Malta

    The speech made by Denis Healey, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 January 1972.

    While thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and welcoming the signs that negotiations may now be resumed, and even more the statement by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence that there is now a 50 per cent. chance of solution, may I say that many on this side of the House will have been surprised by the sour and ungracious tone in which the right hon. Gentleman referred to the contributions which have already been and may yet be made by our N.A.T.O. allies? We on this side of the House agree that there should be no increase in the British contribution. Indeed, if any money is available to create jobs, we believe that it should be used to create jobs in Britain rather than in Malta. But now that the other N.A.T.O. countries are clearly prepared to make a financial contribution commensurate with their interest in Malta as members of the Alliance, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government were so angry and embarrassed last week when the Americans finally came forward with a contribution, why they attempted to conceal this offer, which was made at least 12 days ago, from the Maltese Government, and why it took the rather improbable alliance of the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O. and my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to get communications restored?

    The Foreign Secretary has rightly stated a point which was pressed on the House by myself as Secretary of State for Defence and hotly contested by the Conservative Party some years ago, that Britain’s and N.A.T.O.’s interest in Malta is not so much to have forces there ourselves as to prevent the Russians having a base there. Will the Foreign Secretary recognise in the course of the negotiations that a solution is much more likely if it de-emphasises the political and military alignment of Malta with N.A.T.O. and concentrates rather on eliminating the possible use of the base by Soviet forces? An agreement along these lines is more likely to receive the continued support of the Maltese people as well as being compatible with progress towards conciliation between the West and Russia in the Mediterranean.

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    The right hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. So far from concealing any offer made by an ally towards a solution with Malta, we have been pressing our allies month by month to raise some extra money over and above what we ourselves are willing to subscribe. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman really has got his facts wrong on this matter.

    There are to be further talks, so I do not want to go further into the finances now. However, there is this important question of aid in the future which I have no doubt would be available from allied countries. This would be of enormous value to Malta if Mr. Mintoff would take it in that form.

    Mr. Healey

    The right hon. Gentleman must not seek to present the facts other than as they were—[HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] Is the Foreign Secretary denying that the American Government made this offer of an increased financial contribution at least as long ago as 8th January, that the British Government declared themselves extremely annoyed when the Maltese Government were informed of this offer by the American Government, that it took several days of persuasion by the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O. to convince the British Government that they must start negotiating again with the Maltese Government, and that the attempt to establish these negotiations did not in fact begin until Friday and Saturday of last week?