UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1974

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 1974 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 1974 Christmas Broadcast

    The Christmas Broadcast made by HM Queen Elizabeth II on 25 December 1974.

    There can be few people in any country of the Commonwealth who are not anxious about what is happening in their own countries or in the rest of the world at this time.

    We have never been short of problems, but in the last year everything seems to have happened at once. There have been floods and drought and famine: there have been outbreaks of senseless violence. And on top of it all the cost of living continues to rise – everywhere.

    Here in Britain, from where so many people of the Commonwealth came, we hear a great deal about our troubles, about discord and dissension and about the uncertainty of our future.

    Perhaps we make too much of what is wrong and too little of what is right. The trouble with gloom is that it feeds upon itself and depression causes more depression.

    There are indeed real dangers and there are real fears and we will never overcome them if we turn against each other with angry accusations.

    We may hold different points of view but it is in times of stress and difficulty that we most need to remember that we have much more in common than there is dividing us.

    We have the lessons of history to show that the British people have survived many a desperate situation when they acted together.

    People in a crowd may seem oblivious of each other. Yet if you look at your neighbours you will see other people with worries and difficulties probably greater than your own. It is time to recognise that in the end we all depend upon each other and that we are therefore responsible for each other.

    Fortunately over the centuries we have devised a way of sharing this responsibility, a uniquely effective system for bringing progress out of conflict.

    We have developed Parliamentary Government by which the rights and freedom of the people are maintained. It allows change to take place temperately and without violence. And when time demands, it can reflect and give a voice to the determination and resolve of the Nation.

    This system, this product of British genius, has been successfully exported to the world wide Commonwealth.

    This year I have opened Parliament four times: in New Zealand, in Australia, and twice the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster. I suspect this may be a record, but what impressed me was that the system itself flourishes thousands of miles away and this alone should give us confidence.

    You may be asking what can we do personally to make things better?

    I believe the Christmas message provides the best clue. Goodwill is better than resentment, tolerance is better than revenge, compassion is better than anger, above all a lively concern for the interests of others as well as our own.

    In times of doubt and anxiety the attitudes people show in their daily lives, in their homes, and in their work, are of supreme importance.

    It is by acting in this spirit that every man, woman and child can help and ‘make a difference’.

    In Britain I am sure it could make all the difference. We are an inventive and tenacious people and the comradeship of adversity brings out the best in us. And we have great resources, not just those of character but in our industry and trade, in our farms and in the seas around our shores.

    My message today is one of encouragement and hope.

    Christmas on this side of the equator comes at the darkest time of the year: but we can look forward hopefully to lengthening days and the returning sun.

    The first Christmas came at a time that was dark and threatening, but from it came the light of the world.

    I wish you all a happy Christmas.

  • Shirley Williams – 1974 Interview on Rising Prices

    Shirley Williams – 1974 Interview on Rising Prices

    Part of the interview broadcast on Good Afternoon on Thames TV on 9 August 1974 with Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

    INTERVIEWER

    Shirley Williams, can you tell me what effective steps you’ve taken to control rising prices?

    SHIRLEY WILLIAMS

    Yes, indeed and I think I have to say that I’ve always said there are some things you can do and some things you can’t do. And I’ll now list the things that I’ve tried to do.

    We first of all, declare a cut across the board in the retail margins of profit by 10%. We extended it not just to fresh food, but all the way across including all the non food items as well. We then declared a three months gap between price increases except to the few very rare cases. We ended the business of increasing prices of goods bought at the same price for stock goods on display, the so called sticky label racket.

    The next group of things we did was to bring in a Prices Bill which is now law, which enabled us to subsidise foods and under it we’ve subsidised bread, milk, butter, flour, and cheese. And that’s not the end of it, there’ll be others. We took powers to require the display of maximum prices for these subsidised foods and the orders on that are going out at the present time. We took powers to introduce unit pricing of particularly fresh foods, especially fruit and vegetables, meat and fish. And the first orders on that tool will be going out in the next few weeks.

    We entered on a voluntary agreement with the retail trade covering essential foodstuffs which weren’t subsidised, in an attempt to try to keep the margins down as low as possible on that, and finally, we’ve taken steps with the local authorities to greatly extend consumer advice centres and we hope that in a short space of time, these will also engage in price monitoring. That’s just on the prices side. I will leave out the consumer protection side where we’ve tried to do some things also. Net effect you want to ask, between four and five points on the food index, up to now with a bit more to come.

    INTERVIEWER

    Well, there’s lots and lots of points to take up there. And perhaps we could start with subsidies? Now the classic argument is you must know only too well against food subsidies is that we all get them, regardless of whether we need them or not. And to back this up yourself, you said recently in the House that only a quarter of the people who benefit from subsidies earn less than 30 pounds a week, actually 24%, are they then the best way of helping people who need help?

    SHIRLEY WILLIAMS

    Oh, Tony, you’ve got yourself stuck into a statistical difficulty that all the House of Commons got itself stuck in, so I can’t blame you. No, it’s 24% of households. But you see, most pensioners are households of one or two people. So that that many households represents far more people than the household figure gives you. Now we know three things about this. The first says that pensioners benefit most, they actually benefit in absolute terms most, that’s to say they make more out of subsidies per head than anybody else in the population. Reason for this quite simply is they buy more staple foods and they spend more of their budget on food. They don’t spend the same amount on cars and holidays and entertainment that no doubt you and I do. So they benefit the most, absolutely. They also benefit the most proportionately, and so do the poor families.

    The other part of the argument, I’ll be as quick about this as I can, of course it’s true that the average benefit of 60 pence a week goes to everybody. But the great difference is that anybody who earns over 60 pounds a week is paying an extra tax much more than he’s getting in subsidy. And anybody earning under 20 pounds a week is paying nothing extra in tax at all. So the whole of the subsidy benefits him and it’s what we call a give and take scheme, quite simply.

    INTERVIEWER

    But isn’t it true that the point of subsidies is completely lost if the good effect they have on lowering the cost of living is completely eroded by the government’s decision to put extra charges on the services of nationalised industries, things like electricity and gas, which pensioners need just as much as everybody else? I mean, isn’t that whole effect completely eroded away, and therefore we’re back to square one?

    SHIRLEY WILLIAMS

    As I began this programme by saying, there has been a definite impact on the food index and a definite impact on the pensioner index. The reason for this is that, although I agree with you nationalised industry prices do affect the pensioner, the pensioner does spend more of his income on food and rent. The two crucial things that had been directly affected in one case by subsidy and the other by freeze, then does anybody else in the population except the very poor large family.

    Now coming to nationalise industries prices. I mean, obviously, as the Prices Minister, I hate to see nationalise industries prices go up. But I think it’s fair to say that the scale of the subsidy was running at about 1,400 million pounds at the end of February, that the only way to sustain this would have been a massive further increase in income tax and other taxes including VAT. Therefore the feeling was in the government, and indeed in the Conservative government before it, that we could had to set a ceiling to these nationalised industry subsidies. And the only other point I would make is this. We have tried to protect the less well off, for example, rail fares to commuters have gone up substantially less than rail fares for people travelling InterCity because our studies have shown us that commuters include far more lower paid people.

    INTERVIEWER

    But you mentioned the word income then. Isn’t it really better to give people the money in some form or another, like increase pensions or family allowances or even less tax ,or some sort of tax credit then they can decide what they themselves would like to spend the money on?

    SHIRLEY WILLIAMS

    It’s no good giving people pensions on the one hand, and then see the whole lot eroded by increases in prices on the other. But the other point I want to make is this, because I think you have got a serious point about family allowances. Subsidies affected the cost of living immediately. It takes perhaps four weeks, six weeks to bring in a subsidy scheme, at least in areas where you can properly inspect it. There are some things like meat, but I’ve always admitted it’s very difficult to do.

    You can’t bring in a new family allowance system in anything like that time. You’ve got to print the books, you’ve got to set up the staff and so on. So can I just say this too quickly? The services have never been intended to be permanent, they’re intended to take the top off inflation. There is nothing in subsidies to preclude the government moving on to family allowances, moving on to higher pensions, but it can’t be done as quickly. It even took pensions up to July to be done although Mrs. Castle worked overtime and so did her staff and that was the shortest possible time.

  • Willie Hamilton – 1974 Speech on North Sea Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Willie Hamilton, the then Labour MP for Fife Central, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    It might be as well to get on the record the fact that we should have another look at the way in which we conduct the Consolidated Fund Bill. The last debate began at just after six o’clock. That means that it has continued for virtually six hours. It was concerned with a subject of major importance, but I think that our proceedings should be arranged in such a way that Members who take part in the ballot and are badly drawn in it might have a better chance of participating and having their say on whatever subject they wish to discuss. I suppose that that is a matter for the Procedure Committee. I hope that the committee will consider the desirability of limiting a debate to a maximum of two or three hours.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-on-Tweed)

    The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) might consider having a word with his Whips about the possibility of allocating more Supply Days to minority parties. That means could be used and might ease the hon. Gentleman’s problem.

    Mr. Hamilton

    It might well be that the minority parties would fare a lot worse than today. Minorities are to be protected, but majorities also have rights. Perhaps I may describe them as larger minorities. Until now, and certainly since the election, the House has given protection to the smaller minorities. It is time that the larger parties had a greater say in the running of debates than they have had hitherto.

    I come immediately to the subject of this debate, which is North Sea oil. Next week we shall have the Budget, in which one of the most critical problems that will have to be dealt with is the scandalous blunder which has been perpetrated in the handling of North Sea energy resources by both Labour and Conservative Governments. I think that the Conservative Government were more culpable than the Labour Government, because it was under the Conservative régime that we had a glimpse of the obvious wealth of resources under the North Sea waiting to be developed.

    The guidelines on future policy were laid down devastatingly by the Public Accounts Committee Report of 1972, which made damning disclosures about Government ineptitude in a purely nonpartisan and objective way. But even since that report was produced at least two new factors have emerged which make imperative the introduction of radical new attitudes and policies.

    The first new factor is the quadrupling of world oil prices within the past four months. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I suppose that we should have foreseen that. It is possible that there will be an equal increase in the foreseeable future.

    Secondly, there has been increasing knowledge about the extent and value of the oil finds in the North Sea—much of it, as well as the Celtic Sea, not yet even explored. In a few months the value of the known commercial reserves has increased sixfold. Various estimates are now made, but anyone who engages in hard figures in this game is being absurd. We do not know what the value of the finds is. It depends entirely on existing prices, and they can be out of date before I sit down.

    It was estimated by the Observer on, I think, 10th February this year, that the resources are worth about £130,000 million at existing prices. The Observer also stated that by 1980 production could be up to 150 million tons a year.

    Professor Balogh said in his recent article in the Banker that by 1980 it could be up to 150 million tons a year. American bankers estimate that production could be over 200 million tons a year. Various estimates are given. Professor Odell, quoted by Professor Balogh, believes that production could be 300 million tons a year, with the British sector delivering two-thirds of that. We are talking in figures beyond the comprehension of the British people.

    Let us assume a minimum United Kingdom figure of 150 million tons a year, or over 1,000 million barrels. Even at 10 dollars a barrel, the annual pre-tax profits would be over £4,000 million and by 1980 the price is almost certain to be at least 50 per cent. higher. It has already been higher than that in some of the auctions. These figures are far higher than the latest figure for the gross profits made by ​ the whole of United Kingdom manufacturing industry as of now. That is the scale of the problem with which we are trying to grapple.

    The scandal is not irreversible, because not a barrel of oil has yet been delivered. At present, more than half of those profits could go untaxed to foreign interests. As early as mid-1970 the oil experts were predicting that the North Sea could provide up to two-thirds of the whole of Europe’s requirements, and since then enormous further finds have been made.

    I referred on a previous occasion to the Edinburgh Mafia, but now the international Mafia has moved in for the killings, from the House of Fraser to Courtaulds—concerns that have no relationship to oil—Thomson Associated Newspapers, and the inevitable stockbrokers, land speculators and merchant bankers. They are all in it, and I hope that the Government—who are now in the process of formulating their policies—will prevent these people from grabbing what they can while they can and then clearing out. By the end of 1971 the potential robbery and plundering of the North Sea was terrifying in its magnitude, matched in size only by the crass ignorance of the Government of what was going on under their noses. But the situation is not irreversible, and the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee still await implementation.

    Certain minimum steps are required to be taken by the Government. Some have been spelt out, partly by the Public Accounts Committee and partly by Lord Balogh. Despite what the Opposition may say about Lord Balogh, he knows his onions about North Sea oil, and I do not think that anything he has proposed will frighten off the oil companies. Let not the Tory Party say, “You are too severe; you will frighten them off.” We shall not be able to drive them out. They will settle for 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. on their capital; there is no question of their pulling out.

    First, there is a case for renegotiation of the existing licence conditions. We have the benefit of hindsight and can see how ridiculously over-generous were successive Governments in giving away the licences at the beginning.

    Secondly, I agree with Mr. Dick Douglas, the former Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, who ​ sat on the Public Accounts Committee and strongly recommended a barrelage tax on a sliding scale, perhaps as recommended by Lord Balogh in the Banker article. We on the Government side favour increased public participation at least comparable to that exercised by Norway.

    We must have a reform of the royalty system, varying with the size of the field, and, going back to the Labour Party policy of six or seven years ago when we recommended the establishment of a national hydrocarbon corporation, a monopoly State buyer and seller which would fix the price at which the oil was bought and sold. The manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the election, referring to the increased oil prices in the Arab countries, said—

    “the new situation has greatly strengthened Labour’s intention to ensure not only that the North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas resources are in full public ownership, but that the operation of getting and distributing them is under full Government control and majority participation. We cannot accept that the allocation of available world output should continue to be made by multi-national oil companies and not by Governments. We will not permit Britain’s own resources to be parcelled out in this, way. It is public ownership and control that will enable the British people, through its Government, to fix the pace of exploitation of our oil, and the use to which it is put, so as to secure the maximum public advantage from our own resources.”

    The manifesto went on to refer to the possibility of setting up an international energy commission to establish an international allocation of available oil resources. I shall return to that in a moment.

    When he spoke last Tuesday, the Prime Minister reminded us that these resources are already a publicly-owned asset, under the Continental Shelf Act. The machinery to ensure its proper use has not yet been devised. The Government admit that frankly. Much the same consideration applies to this matter as applies to Kilbrandon. Any Government would be most ill advised to make decisions of this magnitude on the spot. Instant government does not apply either to Kilbrandon or to North Sea oil. I could not blame the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when concluding for the Opposition in the energy debate last week, for making some play of the apparent contradiction between one policy and another ​ expressed from this side. But there is no need to apologise for saying that it is an extremely difficult problem to tackle. One does not want to drive the oil companies away. On the other hand, one does not want them to be the masters of our fate. They must be our servants, not our masters.

    All we are entitled to expect from the Minister tonight, I think, is a progress report. Two days ago, on 18th March, he made a speech to a conference in Newcastle in which he said, in so many words, that the Government were planning a partnership with the oil companies to obtain the maximum benefit for the British people. That can be criticised, of course, as saying no more than that we are not going in for full-blown public ownership, or nationalisation. I do not give a damn how the cash is obtained—whether through 51 per cent. control, a public corporation, a barrellage tax, or whatever it may be—so long as we ensure that the revenues from North Sea oil come back to the people. The asset belongs to us and to no one else. The oil companies’ expertise in exploring, discovering and extracting must be used for the public good.

    My hon. Friend went on to say that several schemes are being considered, and that legislation will be forthcoming in the next 12–18 months. Tonight, I hope that he will be able to answer one or two specific questions. He recognises the importance of the IMEG Report, which was highly critical of what had gone on up to 1972, when the report was made.

    Do the Government intend to implement as swiftly as possible all the recommendations in that report? If not, which are they throwing overboard, and why?

    For instance, are we to have art extension of further education and training facilities? It is absurd that we should be talking about thousands of millions of pounds of potential revenue, yet for education and training facilities we speak in terms of hundreds or thousands at the most. We should be thinking in terms of millions of pounds, and we should be demanding that kind of money from the oil companies.

    I hope that we shall hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next week that we hope to get revenue from the oil companies’ profits, prospective and present, ​ and use a lot of that for extending these facilities, for building up the Petroleum Supply Industry Board which was recommended by the IMEG Report, for an information service to offshore operators and contractors, for credit facilities for covering the sales of equipment and services to offshore operators and contractors, and financial support for research and development projects.

    Different types of production platform are being put forward for offshore moorings, or for pipelines. There are various techniques for deeper water exploration. All these require enormous sums of money. I was glad to see the IMEG report recommending a study of the infrastructure. There is no doubt that oil facilities onshore will affect the environment. No one can prevent this.

    I do not believe that the industry can be sustained without a massive switch of transport from road to rail. There will have to be a big investment in the railways in the Highlands and wherever there is an oil potential. There is a reference in the IMEG report to the problems created in Scotland. It happens that oil has been found where the environment is perhaps more important than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is not easy to marry the need to get the oil for national purposes with the need to protect a way of life that is unique. To make sure that one situation does not destroy the other is an exciting and challenging task, which we cannot shirk or pretend that it will go away.

    We must ensure that the minimum long-term damage is done to traditional values and ways of life. It is not good enough to say that we should slow down development. The tap cannot be turned off as easily as the Scottish National Party seems to suggest. How would that party slow it down and to whose advantage would that be? I appreciate that in the nature of things this is an extremely valuable asset, limited in its duration. We do not know how long an extractive industry will last. It is important to treat it as a precious asset, not one to be squandered by selling it below the world price or by getting people to believe that it can be shovelled out to provide massively increased pensions.

    The SNP campaign during the election appalled me by its appeal to the base ​ material instincts of people. It had a leaflet that was almost pornographic. It spoke of £25-a-week pensions, no income tax, and no rates. One of the party’s candidates actually went around on a camel in one of the constituencies.

    Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

    It was a Conservative candidate in Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire who had occasion to use a camel in the course of the campaign. Certainly none of our candidates was so minded.

    Mr. Hamilton

    No, perhaps they could not afford it. That was the kind of campaign conducted. Certainly it was not a Labour candidate who used a camel.

    It is quite wrong to appeal to people’s nationalistic greed by saying that because the oil happens to have been found round a particular part of the coast north of an arbitrary line drawn between Carlisle and Berwick, all the benefit should go to people who happen to live north of that line and nothing should go south. I find that kind of campaign quite appalling.

    I go further. These ought to be treated as international resources. We are not at that stage yet. We are a long way from world government. But that is how I would like to see them treated. At the moment we have divided the North Sea by international agreement, and we have divided the resources by international agreement. We have to see to it that they are used for the benefit of all our people.

    There are people all over the United Kingdom who are as poor as and sometimes poorer than the poorest in Scotland. As an international Socialist, I do not think in these narrow nationalistic terms, and as an Englishman representing a Scottish constituency for 24 years, I think that I can say that.

    My nationality has never been questioned, although my birth sometimes has. The people of Fife always ask me what I stand for and what principles I stand for, not where I was born and what nationality I am. This problem should be approached in a similar way.

    Whatever Government machinery is devised or evolved, the minerals round our shores and beneath our land belong to us all, and we have to see to it that the oil companies are answerable and ​ accountable to us. They must be our agents and not our masters. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to seek ways and means of keeping this House continuously informed. I should like some machinery devised—it may be a permanent all-party Select Committee of this House having a continuous oversight of what is going on, or the Government might see fit to produce monthly reports on the progress of consultation. They must demand from the oil companies a full disclosure of their costings and of their accounts. Let us have full open disclosure by them. For far too long we have worked in the dark. The oil companies are skilled at pulling the wool over the eyes of successive Governments. That must no longer pertain. I hope that we shall have some undertakings along these lines.

    I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will explain precisely what is to be the role of Lord Balogh in these proceedings and what is the relationship between my hon. Friend himself, Lord Balogh and the Minister for Energy. I have a great admiration for the noble Lord. I think that he knows what he is about, and the oil companies have a right to fear and respect him. I hope that he will be used to the maximum. But I should like to know the relative importance of Lord Balogh, of the Minister for Energy and of my hon. Friend.

    It will be a very difficult exercise and a very exciting challenge. I hope that this minority Government will exist long enough to get the legislation on the statute book which the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his last Budget. Nothing has happened since, except a retreat, if anything, from that promise. Apart from that, I hope that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will take it upon himself to lay down the line to the oil companies that we are not having any more of the kind of financial jiggery-pokery for which the oil companies have been well known over many years. They have always known how to cook the books and how to evade taxation. This must be stopped. We must ensure that the vast resources at our disposal are used for the benefit of all our people and that in the process the environment is disturbed to the minimum extent.

  • Frank McElhone – 1974 Speech on Patrick Meehan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Frank McElhone, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Queen’s Park, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I rise to raise the case of Patrick Connelly Meehan, a constituent of mine, who, as I am standing here, is completing his fifth year of a sentence of life imprisonment in Peterhead Prison for a crime many people believe he did not commit. He was convicted in the High Court in Edinburgh in October 1969 for the murder in her bungalow in Ayr of Mrs. Rachael Ross.

    The crime was frightful, and I do not seek to condone it. It involved the death of an elderly woman who was tied up in her own home in furtherance of the theft of her husband’s savings. I am not here to condone or overlook the past criminal activities of my constituent, Patrick Meehan. Rather am I here in the interests of justice, for it matters not whether the person concerned was Patrick Meehan, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, me or anyone else in the Chamber. What matters is that it appears that the wrong man was convicted.

    Patrick Meehan is a man with a long record of dishonesty but no record of violence. He was charged and subsequently convicted of the crime, albeit by a majority of nine to six. Despite the character of the crime, and despite the the character of Patrick Meehan, there is every reason to believe not only that he was wrongly convicted but that one of the likely perpetrators of the crime is known and is at large.

    A person was named and accused by the defence at the original trial in October 1969, and since then that person has confessed to, and been sentenced for, giving perjured evidence at the original trial. He has subsequently confessed in detail to the actual crime of which Meehan was convicted, a confession which he denied on ascertaining that it had been surreptitiously recorded by the BBC.

    There can be few, if any, other cases in legal history in Scotland or in England ​ of a man serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a crime to which another man has confessed in uncontrovertible detail. Even if there had been no such defence and no such confession, the events which emerged and the evidence which has become available since the conviction cast the greatest doubts upon the validity of the original verdict.

    The Crown case was never more than circumstantial. It depended in the main upon five factors or circumstances. Two of those five were provided by Meehan himself to the police at a very early stage in their inquiry, even before Meehan had been arrested and before suspicion had focused upon him in any way.

    Meehan told the police that he had been in the proximity of Ayr and in the company of James Griffiths on the night of the crime. Following upon his arrest he gave the name and address of James Griffiths to the police in support of his alibi. When the police went to arrest Griffiths a gun battle ensued in Glasgow, in the course of which Griffiths, who was armed, was shot dead.

    At the trial, the first two circumstances of the Crown case were that Meehan was in the proximity of Ayr on the night in question and that he was in the company of Griffiths, who had attempted to shoot his way out when being arrested for the crime, and who had a criminal record for violence, which the jury was allowed to hear in the course of Meehan’s trial.

    The third circumstance was the identification of Meehan by his voice. At an identification parade Mr. Abraham Ross, the widower of the deceased, asked that each member of the parade say the words “Shut up, shut up. We’ll get an ambulance.” Meehan, who was in the first position on the parade, spoke the words and was immediately identified by his voice. No other person on that parade spoke those words.

    The fourth circumstance was that the men involved referred to each other as “Pat” and “Jim”—the Christian names of Meehan and Griffiths. The fifth circumstance was that there were found, some six weeks after Griffiths’ death, in a car coat belonging to him, scraps of paper which could have had a common origin with paper in Mr. Ross’s safe. Thus, the Crown relied heavily on ​ Griffiths’ presence, Griffiths’ violence, Griffiths’ record, and Griffiths’ voice.

    Subsequent to Meehan’s trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. I asked constitutional experts in the House whether I could play this tape, because it would have a very important bearing on the case. Although I have the tape in the House, I am, of course, responding to the wishes and practice of the House and I am depending upon the oral case I am presenting to influence my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am delighted to see that even at this late hour my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is also present, and I am extremely grateful to him.

    As I have said, subsequent to Meehan’s trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. In the course of that interview, Griffiths stated that he could never face prison again and that if ever any attempt were made to arrest him he would shoot his way out. He also spoke with a pronounced North of England accent. This is very important because in the course of the trial Mr. Ross, himself a Glaswegian, claimed that the two raiders had Scottish accents and that the one referred to as “Jim” spoke with a Glasgow accent.

    None the less, the Appeal Court, when Meehan’s appeal came before it, refused to allow the recording of Griffiths’ voice to be played to Mr. Ross. Such was the Crown case that the raiders were either Meehan and Griffiths together or neither. Had Mr. Ross, on hearing the tape, excluded Griffiths, he would thereby have excluded Meehan and, indeed, would thereby have excluded all the evidence which there was against Meehan.

    At the trial, Meehan impeached Ian Waddell, an unemployed labourer. Waddell gave evidence at the trial, during the course of which he denied having paid £200 to a Glasgow solicitor as a retainer in the event of his being charged with the murder. Mr. Ross, who, in the course of the trial, heard Waddell use the words ​

    “Shut up. Shut up. We’ll get an ambulance”

    stated that Waddell’s could have been one of the voices heard in the house during the robbery.

    Despite considerable evidence pointing towards Waddell, the presiding judge withdrew from the consideration of the jury the special defence impeaching him. Recent clarification of the law in the case of Her Majesty’s Advocate against Lambie has made it clear that the special defence ought not to have been withdrawn from the jury.

    Subsequent to the dismissal of Meehan’s appeal against his conviction, Ian Waddell was charged with and pleaded guilty to having given perjured evidence at Meehan’s trial in that he denied having paid the retainer to the Glasgow solicitor concerned. When he was sentenced for perjury, the presiding judge, Lord Cameron, gave it as his opinion that had Waddell told the truth at Meehan’s trial the jury in Meehan’s trial might have come to a different conclusion.

    In February 1973 Ian Waddell on two separate occasions gave blunt and detailed confessions to members of the BBC, that he was responsible for the crime, along with another man, the identity of whom was the one detail of the crime that he refused to divulge. Unknown to him, the members of the BBC staff to whom he was speaking in a Glasgow public house were surreptitiously recording his conversation. When the existence of these recordings became known, Waddell attempted unsuccessfully to interdict the BBC from making use of them, and denied indeed ever having made the confessions.

    Waddell gave detailed descriptions of the design and content of the house, facts which could only be within the knowledge of someone who had been in the house, and facts which were subsequently confirmed by Mr. Ross’s daily help.

    As though that by itself were not enough, it is now apparent that the conduct of the identification parade at which Meehan was identified by his voice was highly irregular. But that was not the only irregularity in this affair. No sooner was James Griffiths dead than, in contradiction of the supreme principle of our law of the presumption of innocence, the ​ Crown Office issued the following statement:

    “With the death of Griffiths and the apprehension of Patrick Meehan, the police are no longer looking for any other person suspected of implication in the incident concerning Mr. and Mrs. Ross at Ayr.”

    With such prejudice, what need is there for evidence? But such prejudice was carried into the evidence, and the criminal record of James Griffiths was put before the jury. Had Griffiths been alive and sitting in the dock instead of being dead and named in the indictment along with Meehan, his record would not have been used against himself, far less against his co-accused.

    In the time available to me I have been able to give a mere outline of the paucity and frailty of the evidence of the Crown, of the prejudice surrounding the trial and the evidence, of the wrong withdrawal of the special defence of impeachment, and, above all, of the weight of the evidence now to hand which suggests strongly the guilt of another perpetrator and scuttles entirely any evidence implicating the man who is at present serving a sentence of life imprisonment in respect of this crime.

    Our law and our legal system are intended to protect the individual, however good or however bad he may be, against wrongful conviction. Where it fails, as it has failed here, it is the duty of us all to admit our mistake and strengthen our law and our legal system by admitting our mistake rather than deny our mistake and pretend that our law and our system are perfect.

    Who in the House would ever say that upon the evidence now available a jury would ever convict Patrick Meehan? This is a unique case. It has disturbed the conscience of many persons within the legal profession, persons of standing and responsibility. It should now disturb the conscience of the House and of the nation. I earnestly urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up with the utmost urgency an impartial inquiry to recommend the Queen’s Pardon for Patrick Meehan and thus ensure that justice is done.

    In conclusion, I wish to put on record my most sincere thanks for assistance and guidance in preparing the case on behalf of Patrick Meehan to Mr. Nicholas Fair-bairn, the QC at his trial, to Mr. Leonard Murray who prepared this brief and, ​ especially, to Mr. Joseph Beltrami, a solicitor at the trial, who has been convinced of the innocence of Patrick Meehan ever since he was convicted five years ago.

  • Emlyn Hooson – 1974 Speech on the Kilbrandon Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emlyn Hooson, the then Liberal MP for Montgomery, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    As this is a debate on the Kilbrandon Report, I should like to begin by saying that I am sure I express the views of people in every part of the United Kingdom when I speak of their abhorrence of violence of the kind we have heard about tonight. It is the sincere hope of all those who are concerned with the issues in the report that never shall anyone resort to violence to achieve his aims.

    It was the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and other members of the Liberal Party to achieve a debate on the Kilbrandon Report early in this Parliament, so that we could adequately consider the great issues raised by that very important constitutional report. The whole House will appreciate the opportunity that has been given for a debate at this stage, because clearly the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary have important matters to consider.

    I think it is inevitable that there should be a great measure of devolution within this country. A great deal of discussion has taken place during my mature years in politics, and there will be a great deal of discussion in the future, on the degree of devolution appropriate for different parts of the United Kingdom. The one thing that seems to have escaped adequate attention is the question of the reasons. We are part of an evolving society in Western Europe and in this country. It is right to say that from the time that Harry Tudor went to the field of Bosworth and marched on to London the eyes of Wales, and later of Scotland, were switched towards London. They did not stop there. We became a part of a tremendously expanding country. The United Kingdom sent people all over the world. It is part of our history that we populated and developed a great part of the globe.

    Whether in the glens of Scotland, in the valleys of Wales, in Westmorland ​ or in the Black Country, up to 20 or 30 years ago if there was insufficient scope for an adventurous young man in his locality he looked towards London, to the seas and beyond the seas. For the first time in modern history this country, in the past 10 years, has been driven back on to its own resources. There is nowhere left for us to expand in the world. There is nowhere left for us to populate. The result is that we have a considerable population which does not reflect the old patterns. In the old days the adventurous spirits would have gone away. Nowadays they stay in their own locality.

    A great deal of talent and much adventurous spirit is left in Scotland, Wales and the regions of the United Kingdom. That is why people now want a greater say in the control of their own affairs than in the past. The evolution of our society and the change in our horizons has determined that that should take place. It is an evolutionary process which is unavoidable.

    The second great consideration is that the evolvement of modern government has inevitably resulted in a consistent tendency towards centralised power. It is almost an irresistible force—this tendency towards centralised power.

    The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to the fact that there is a movement all over the country and in Europe which is partly expressed by the nationalist parties, partly by the Liberal Party and partly by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In different ways they are all expressing a discontent with the modern state of affairs which we have inherited from the past and which suited the conditions which governed us in the past.

    Today it is inevitable that we have arrived at a situation in which some form of devolution is essential. I have firmly believed all my life that Wales should have a domestic parliament with legislative powers. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Argyll to Gladstone. In Gladstone’s Newcastle programme there was not only a proposal for home rule for Ireland. I tell the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), who is not in his place, that home rule in that context did not ​ mean separation but a domestic parliament. It is to the eternal discredit of the other place that the Bill which was presented many times by Gladstone and his successors should have been obstructed and that Gladstone was frustrated in his intention to give Ireland a domestic parliament. We should have retained, if he had succeeded, what is now the Republic of Ireland within the United Kingdom.

    The second measure which Gladstone intended to initiate was home rule for Scotland and the third was home rule for Wales. That would have followed the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. It was the frustration of the Irish measures under Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George that led to the present impasse, which has resulted in a part of Ireland breaking away from the United Kingdom and a great deal of trouble in Northern Ireland.

    That is the background to the debate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is true that in Scotland and Wales the same kind of pressures do not exist which existed in Ireland in the nineteenth century or exist today. We do not have to create such unnecessary pressures in the present century if we have enlightened government.

    I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). He knows that I have considerable respect for him, but he spent too much time attacking the Liberals and the nationalists and too little explaining what he would like to see implemented for Wales. Wales and Scotland are essentially different. From my many visits to Scotland and judging also by my many Scottish friends, I believe that the Scottish nationality is based more on ancient institutions than is the case in Wales.

    Scotland has its own system of law. Wales had its own system of courts until 1830—the Courts of Session—which were abolished after a great speech by Edmund Burke. But apart from that, Wales has been singularly free of governmental institutions since the Tudor period. Emotionally, of course, it was a case of Wales taking over England when the Tudors moved to the throne, which had a great psychological effect in Wales. One thing which the Tudors did was to ensure that Wales was absorbed wholly into the ​ United Kingdom. Much of their policy towards the language is still much criticised in Wales today.

    In Scotland, national identity has depended on the trappings of State at a much later stage of history than is the case in Wales, which enjoyed them, if at all, for only a short time. The Welsh identity is based on cultural and social considerations far more than on institutions, and there is a great deal of difference between the two countries.

    I am convinced that in the modern world we have all the pressures in Europe to strive for greater unity. Although I was against going into the Common Market, I share the view that we should aim at a united Europe. But we want to create a different kind of Europe from that which was in danger of being created by the Common Market. There are undoubted pressures for a multinational unit of some kind in Europe, enjoying its own loyalty among the people it will contain. But, as a corollary, such a multinational unit will be impossible unless we have far greater protection for minorities within it. This is why it is so important to have devolution for Wales and Scotland.

    Wales in this generation needs some institutions of government which the Welsh princes and the Tudors failed to give it and which we in our day must give it if Wales is to continue to hold dear its cultural and social values. I am, therefore, entirely in favour of a Parliament with legislative powers in Wales. I have always stood for this. Not every member of my party, at least in Wales, has always supported my view, but I have always held to it. I think it is the only course which makes sense.

    I understand I have been criticised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I am sorry I missed his speech, but I was unavoidably absent. He said that I was in favour of a referendum on the Kilbrandon Report. I am. I think there should be adequate debate on the report in Wales and then a referendum.

    I was in favour of a referendum on the Common Market because I believe that our membership was a great constitutional change. I think that the introduction of Kilbrandon would be a great constitutional change. I supported the Bill brought in by Mr. James Davidson, who ​ sat as Liberal Member for Aberdeenshire, West in the 1966–70 Parliament, when the Labour Party was in power last. The aim of the Bill was to have a referendum on a parliament for Scotland and a parliament for Wales. Who was against it? The Labour Party. On all major constitutional changes we should have a referendum. I have never changed my view on this. It is the only subject for which referenda are suitable in this country.

    On the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report that there should be a legislative assembly for Scotland, two of the members of the Commission who supported that recommendation dissented on the same recommendation for Wales. The reasons are given in paragraph 1151 of the report:

    “Wales, on the other hand, has no separate system of law, hardly any separate legislation and a geographically less well defined border. Two of us who favour legislative devolution for Scotland regard these and other differences between Scotland and Wales, and the strong desirability of retaining a Secretary of State for Wales, as sufficing to preclude its extension to Wales.”

    I regard those reasons, which are the only reasons in the report, as completely inadequate for distinguishing between Wales and Scotland. The fact that Wales is such a conscious community and so needs a focal point, the fact that so little time is given by the House to the discussion of Welsh affairs, the fact that so many problems which appear unimportant to the House but are important to the social and economic future of Wales, absolutely negative the reasons given by the two dissentients.

    I regard the Kilbrandon Report as being of the greatest value in analysing the kind of devolution that we can obtain. I do not regard as important the counting of heads—seven in favour of one solution and five in favour of another. Clearly, many members of the commission had preconceived ideas and, as the report indicates, what they finally recommended depended to a large extent on where they came from geographically.

    Looking to the future and to the youth of Wales, if we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom we need devolution to Wales and Scotland. It is as important in the minds of those who wish to preserve the unity of the United ​ Kingdom as it is in the minds of those who want, as Welsh Nationalists, far greater power for Wales. That is why I go wholeheartedly with the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report in favour of legislative devolution for Wales.

    Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), like his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and gave the impression that his speech was an all-out attack on Liberals and nationalists, thereby conveying that it was an anti-devolutionary speech. As is well known, my right hon. Friend has long held views on devolution to Wales. He has campaigned for more than 25 years for a greater voice for the Principality. I am sure that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not wish to convey the impression that my right hon. Friend is striving to hold back the natural aspirations of the Welsh people.

    Mr. Hooson

    I have a greater respect for the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and his views on devolution than have most of the Labour Party. If the right hon. Gentleman conveyed a wrong impression to me, that is a matter he should have put right. I accept that throughout the years he has been in favour of greater devolution for Wales.

  • Roy Jenkins – 1974 Statement on the Kidnap of Princess Anne

    Below is the text of the statement made by Roy Jenkins, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I regret to have to report to the House that an attempt was made by an armed man to kidnap Princess Anne at about 8 p.m. this evening when she was on her way back to Buckingham Palace with her husband.

    The attempt did not succeed, and neither the Princess nor Captain Phillips was hurt.

    I much regret to say, however, that Princess Anne’s protection officer sustained very severe injuries, and her driver, a police constable and a member of the public were also seriously hurt.

    A man has been detained and is now helping the police with their inquiries.

    I shall report further to the House when further information is available.

  • Shirley Williams – 1974 Speech on the Bread Subsidy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I have discussed with representatives of the bakers the situation arising from their proposals to make increases in bread prices on 25th March following their notifications to the Price Commission.

    As the House is aware, it is the Government’s intention to introduce food subsidies for certain basic foodstuffs as soon as possible and, against that background, I explained to the bakers that it was my wish to avoid any price increases occurring on the major types of bread. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have now agreed with the bakers on arrangements under which there will be no increase on 25th March in the price of almost all loaves weighing 14 ounces or more, which account for nearly 94 per cent. of bread consumption.

    I am grateful for the co-operation of the bakers in enabling these arrangements to be made so quickly. Loaves of less than 14 ounces—which comprise smaller speciality loaves such as French bread, bread rolls and most types of starch-reduced bread—are not subject to these arrangements. Therefore, there may be some prices increases for these speciality breads.

    The proposals which I am making will involve paying a subsidy, subject to the approval by the House of the powers I shall be seeking in the proposed legislation on prices and subsidies. Estimates will be laid before the House in due course. The estimated cost of avoiding this round of increases in bread prices is of the order of £21 million per annum. My right hon. Friend will be taking this cost into account in formulating his Budget.

    Mr. Peter Walker

    May I ask the right hon. Lady whether it is her intention, by means of subsidy, to hold the price of bread at its present level irrespective of ​ further rises in cost? Secondly, may I ask her whether she is satisfied that spending £21 million on an indiscriminate subsidy of this type is the best way to spend such a sum to help those most in need? Finally, is it her intention to make further statements on subsidies for milk, cheese, butter, margarine, cooking fats, eggs, bacon, ham, poultry and flour, which the present Leader of the House said are items which could be subsidised by a Labour Government?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I can only say that he will have to wait and see, because neither he nor I can say what will be the movement of wheat prices in the next few months. Further price increases will be subject to notification to the Price Commission, and it will be open to us to engage in further discussions with the industry.

    As for the suggestion that the subsidy is indiscriminate, I must say that so-called discriminating subsidies constantly fail on the grounds of take-up. Therefore, we feel that bread, being an essential in the diet particularly of lower-paid workers and pensioners, is very well worth subsidising.

    On the question of further subsidies, my right hon. Friend said that these were articles that could be subsidised; it is important to distinguish between “could” and “would”. I will make further announcements to the House about any other individual commodities which we intend to subsidise.

    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be warmly welcomed as an important counter-inflationary measure and as an immediate fulfilment of our election pledge? Is she also aware that in certain rural areas, including my own constituency of Anglesey, an extra 1p is added to the cost of the loaf? Will she investigate this as a matter of urgency?

    Mrs. Williams

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). In reply to his point about the rural areas where transport costs lead to higher prices, we are at present only holding existing prices, but this is necessarily the sort of matter that we shall have in mind in our longer-term consideration.

    ​Mr. Pardoe

    While congratulating the right hon. Lady on having emerged from these negotiations and having learned that cheque book government is a good deal more difficult than she thought, may I ask the right hon. Lady to confirm that to have pegged the price of bread in 1970 would by now be costing the British taxpayer £200 million? Does she not think that the £500 million that she has available would be better spent not on indiscriminate or discriminate subsidies but on family allowances? Will she confirm that, having failed to subsidise French bread, George Thomson was right when he said that the French are now subsidising British bread?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, only the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party suppose that any kind of government is easy. Some of us know better than that.

    The cost of family allowances is a separate matter which we shall be looking at as a Government. We were the last Government to increase family allowances. We believe that family allowances should have been increased in the long period since they were last increased. However, that is not a matter with which I am immediately concerned because bread is important in the diet of pensioners as well as of families.

    In reply to the third point, we are allowing the price of the French loaf—a loaf which may be enjoyed by those who receive the salaries of Members of Parliament—to find its own market level. It is no policy of the present Government to subsidise luxury foodstuffs.

    Mr. Mark Hughes

    Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the effect of this announcement on household flour, and whether there will be any consequential changes on milling tails for animal feeding stuffs?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the first part of the question, no general price increase has been notified for flour. Were such a price increase to come, we would consider it sympathetically.

    In reply to my hon. Friend’s question about feeding stuffs, the subsidy relates only to bread flour used for the commercial production of bread. This by itself will not affect feeding stuff prices.

    Mr. Hordern

    Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the subsidy of £21 million covers only the historic costs of the bakers and does not include the current world price of wheat, and that a further claim by the bakers is likely to be made to the Price Commission in the next six weeks? An estimate of that cost is around £70 million. Will the right hon. Lady allow the subsidy to cover that figure in due course?

    Mrs. Williams

    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figure which I announced will not cover any further increase apart from the one which we have under consideration. The figure which I am giving deals with the increase at present in the pipeline. Any further increase will have to be notified to the Price Commission and considered by the Commission, as was the case under the previous administration. What will happen in connection with the Government’s policy in respect of any further increases is a matter which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate.

    Mr. Jay

    While warmly welcoming the announcement which my right hon. Friend has made, may I ask her to say whether the Government will also stop the denaturing of good milling wheat by the Intervention Board which is designed to keep prices up and cannot rationally be combined with a policy of subsidies?

    Mrs. Williams

    I understand that this matter is to be looked at by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the discussions which he will be having shortly with the EEC. I take my right hon. Friend’s point.

    Sir D. Walker-Smith

    Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position, in the context of what she calls speciality bread —such as wholemeal bread, starch-reduced bread and other dietetically beneficent bread, if these were excluded from subsidy—from the point of view of the health of the nation?

    Mrs. Williams

    I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s affection for these beneficent breads. Any loaf which weighs either 14 ounces or 28 ounces will be covered by the subsidy, which is necessarily rough and ready mechanism because it has been organised in a short time. What happens in the longer term is another matter, and we shall hold dis- ​ cussions with the bakers concerning the many varieties of bread which exist.

    Mr. Arthur Davidson

    May I ask my right hon. Friend a simple question? Does this mean that bread prices will not go up in any shop? Secondly, will she keep an eye on an important fact—namely, ensuring that the English loaf is not suddenly transformed overnight into a speciality French loaf for the worst possible reasons?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question because it is important to make the position clear. The subsidy does not cover breads which are 10 ounces and below—such products as bread rolls, French baguets and so forth. It does not cover speciality breads of any kind. Those bakers who do not apply for the subsidy will not be covered by it. I trust that there will be few such, but there may be some.

    The simple answer, therefore, to my hon. Friend’s question is that the housewife will find that the price of the ordinary 14-ounce and 28-ounce loaves should not be increased. If she finds that it has been increased in one shop, I ask her to—[HON. MEMBERS: “Shop around?”]—walk down the road to the next shop. But we are talking about 94 per cent. of all loaves produced, so I am sure the housewife will not be obliged to shop around.

    Mrs. Oppenheim

    I welcome the right hon. Lady’s apparent conversion to shopping around. Does she consider bread to be one of those items which bear most heavily on the family budget? What is the cash benefit per week likely to be to the average family on average bread consumption? How is this likely to be offset by other increases in prices, such as for electricity?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am not converted to shopping around, which I thought was one of the sillier pieces of advice given by the last Government, since so many will not be obliged to shop around, because 94 per cent. of the loaves will be cause 94 per cent. of the loaves will be covered. Bread is one of the larger items in the retail food price index. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would know that. She will not expect me to anticipate statements, not only of my Department but of other Departments, about prices in the nationalised industries.

    ​Mr. Huckfield

    I welcome what my right hon. Friend said, but is she aware that the latest published returns of the big flour millers reveal that Rank Hovis McDougall’s showed a profits rise of 17·3 per cent., Spillers-French of 17·3 per cent. and Associated British Foods of 27·3 per cent? In the circumstances, should we be subsidising such companies? Should we not be asking them to reduce their subsidies to the Conservative Party?

    Mrs. Williams

    It would be useful if they did so. My hon. Friend is putting a fair point but he is looking at profits which do not wholly relate to bread, and we are not at present subsidising flour or any other ingredients which go into products other than bread. The question of profits is a matter which will be considered by the Price Commission, but it will also be studied by the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the matter today.

    Sir H. Nicholls

    Can the right hon. Lady estimate how much time has been bought by this £21 million? Roughly, when does she expect the price of bread to go up or down as a consequence of the price of the ingredients?

    Mrs. Williams

    I cannot possibly say when the next increase might be due. We are living through an historic period during which wheat prices have risen very fast. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] We have said it over and over again. I really do wish sometimes that the Conservative Party would not cheer when we repeat what we said over and over again during the election—that world food prices have risen but that they are by no means the only factor in prices.

    Mr. Peter Mills

    In the interest of keeping the loaf fairly steady in price, will the right hon. Lady consider the encouragement of the use of more soft wheat in the mixture and get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture to see whether more hard wheat could not be grown in this country? Both these things would help keep the price of the loaf steady.

    Mrs. Williams

    As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there has already been ​ some shift towards soft wheat in the average grind, by millers over the past year, and we welcome that because it has managed to shave the price increase to some extent. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about hard wheat further, but he also knows that in the use of soft wheat there is a limit on the staying quality of the loaf. But I will pass his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

    Mr. Kilfedder

    What will be the saving to the average family as a result of the subsidy, which I welcome? Can the right hon. Lady ensure that, because of freight charges, the price of bread in Northern Ireland will not be any different from the price in England?

    Mrs. Williams

    The immediate effect will be to avoid an increase in the food price index of 0·25 per cent. I cannot possibly answer the hon. Gentleman’s point about the saving to the average family because this involves each person’s individual food budget. But I have given the best indications I can.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the price in Northern Ireland. The subsidy is intended not to meet the additional cost of transport to any part of the United Kingdom but to meet the additional cost of the flour for bread production.

  • Ken Clarke – 1974 Speech on Caravan Residents

    Ken Clarke – 1974 Speech on Caravan Residents

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Clarke, the then Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

    It is my pleasure first to congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and to welcome him in making what I understand will be his first speech from the Treasury bench.

    I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the subject to which I am drawing his attention, and to which I hope he will apply his skill and judgment, is an extremely suitable matter for a Minister who might have a comparatively short tenure of office. It is one where a considerable and worthwhile improvement could be made.

    The problems of mobile home and caravan dwellers concern a number of hon. Members, as is borne out by the numbers who have spoken to me about it since they saw that I was lucky enough to have secured this Adjournment debate, and by the attendance in the House now, which is startlingly large for an Adjournment debate.

    Mobile homes and caravans are becoming an increasingly popular form of residence, particularly at a time of rising house prices. There are all over the country, in many constituencies, large sites with mobile home dwellers in them. A high proportion of those living there are the elderly or young couples, who increasingly find them an attractive way of having a reasonable home in the countryside at a much more modest price than they would pay elsewhere.

    Sometimes the idea of caravan or mobile home living conjures up the vision of scruffy estates of caravans which are an eyesore. There are such sites, but the vast majority, certainly the ones that concern me most, are good, well-run sites.

    The mobile homes are in reality not mobile at all. In most cases the wheels have not moved for many years. The ​ caravans are on brick-built footings, and are in every respect bungalows, usually well cared for by their occupants. They are normally pleasant developments in pleasant parts of the countryside, such as those at Radcliffe-on-Trent, Shelford and Gamston in my constituency.

    They may look like dwellings, and they are bought by people who might otherwise buy themselves a bungalow in the country or a small house. But the position of the occupiers, who buy the caravan but rent from a site operator the site on which it stands, is by no means the same as that of occupiers of any other dwellings or any other form of accommodation.

    In an Adjournment debate it would be out of order for me to recommend changes in the law. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) had a private Member’s Bill which fell at the General Election.

    The background against which the Minister must consider the problems is that the Landlord and Tenant Acts and their consequences have not applied to occupiers of caravans vis-à-vis their sites. The Rent Acts security of tenure provisions and restrictions on rent increases do not apply. Therefore, the latest surprise for residents of caravans is that the rent freeze declared by the incoming Government has no effect. I understand, upon the ground rents of caravan dwellers. They now find themselves subject to demands for increased rent. It comes as a startling discovery to many residents when they go into occupation to find that the protection which successive Governments thought it right to give those who rent or even buy their own homes does not apply to them because theirs are mobile homes.

    There are other problems which residents tend to discover when they have lived in the caravan sites for some time. Unfortunately, one reason why they discover after some time that their position is somewhat unusual compared with that of other home dwellers is that often no written contract or document worth giving the name to is exchanged between the site owner and his tenants when they take up the tenancy of their caravans. When the new purchaser of the caravan moves in, important things about his security of tenure—the terms on which he can live ​ there, the contractual period in between demands for rent increases, liability for maintenance, liability for acts of negligence, rights of access for those providing services or even for visitors—are left undefined and tend to be sorted out when disputes arise between the site owner and the residents.

    It is clearly undesirable that so many matters remain undefined. This gives rise to constant disputes in some cases. In the worst cases—I emphasise only in the worst cases—irresponsible or even almost dishonest site owners exploit this lack of a clear definition of the relationship between the owner and his caravan dwellers, and considerable harassment and abuse of the position of the tenants takes place. I should like to believe that it is the desire —I am sure that it is—of both those who live in the homes and the best site owners to try to improve the situation.

    During the tenure of the Conservative Government the Department of the Environment, under the previous Minister, lent its good offices to further discussion between the National Federation of Site Operators on the one hand and the Mobile Home Residents’ Association on the other. At first the discussions between those bodies representing substantial numbers of owners and tenants made slow and sticky progress. Therefore, I would very much welcome any indication from the Minister tonight whether any real progress has now been made in terms of producing a recommended contract to be exchanged between site owners and caravan-dwelling tenants. I should also like to see normal methods of contact between owners and tenants on well-administered caravan sites to get rid of these constant complaints.

    There is another point that has emerged from the discussions. I hope that the Minister can deal with it for it is a bad abuse and is a serious problem affecting caravan owners. I refer to the difficulty that faces an owner when seeking to resell his caravan and obtaining an improved capital gain when selling it. Almost all caravan owners assume that when they sell their mobile homes they will be able to take advantage of the rising property market—and certainly this was the situation in the past—to make a profit to go towards investment in a further home. However, I regret to say that in the vast majority of cases ​ this does not happen to caravan owners. The caravan owner finds that he has acquired the right to sell the caravan, but the site on which it stands remains at the disposal of the site owner. In practice it is useless to try to sell the caravan without the site on which it stands. In theory one can sell the caravan and somebody will tow it away, but since many mobile homes have to be put on the back of a lorry the process of moving is very expensive.

    Furthermore, it is difficult to find a site on which a casual owner may move his own caravan. When this happens heavy fees are charged, and at the moment it is almost impossible to find sites.

    Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

    Does my hon. Friend not agree that one difficulty is that the site owner with a vacant site insists on a new caravan being purchased, so that in such a case the usury is double?

    Mr. Clarke

    Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The position is, as I was seeking to explain, that when a caravan tenant comes to sell his caravan, he finds that he cannot sell it to a purchaser whom he has approached, say, through a newspaper advertisement because the site owner will not allow the ownership of the site to be passed on to any casual purchaser, or indeed to any purchaser at all. The site owner makes it clear to the caravan owner that if he sells the caravan to the first-corner, the caravan will have to be removed. This enables the site owner to insist that the caravan is sold to the site owner. In many cases the site owner insists on a sale at a marked down value, and this amounts almost to a forced sale.

    Mr. David Mudd (Falmouth and Cam-borne)

    I must declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the National Federation of Site Operators. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Federation deprecates the practice outlined by my hon. Friend. This matter is covered by a code of conduct that is binding on federation members. The federation hopes to introduce that code of conduct as mutually acceptable to its members, and it is hoped that it will lead to an end to this disgusting practice.

    Mr. Clarke

    I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend, in the capacity which he has described to the House, refer to this ​ as a “disgusting practice”. I hope that his federation will take steps to ensure that it does not admit any members who indulge in that sort of activity. My experience is that the vast majority of caravan site owners follow this practice. I have had experience of situations in which the site owners have insisted on knocked-down values for caravans. The fact is that the market price of caravans has been such that caravans are bought in at a reduced price by the site owner and then sold by him at a considerable profit to an incoming purchaser—a purchaser who comes in quite unaware of the fact that there are restrictions on resale. It has tempted far too many site owners in recent years.

    It must be a major item in the profitability of some sites that the capital value of the caravans on the site will accrue to the site owner rather than to the unfortunate owner-occupiers of them. The result is that many caravan owners, especially more elderly people, find it almost impossible to leave a site because the knock-down value of their caravans is not sufficient for them to acquire properties elsewhere.

    This is all legal, of course. I do not suggest that there is anything illegal about it. However, it is what might colloquially be termed a fiddle, and it is an abuse of the relationship between site owners and caravan dwellers.

    I accept that any increase in the value of a caravan on a site is partly an increase in the site value, in much the same way as the increase in values of houses is in part an increase in land values. Perhaps a 10 per cent. share of the profit on the re-sale of a caravan going to the site owner is defensible as being almost legitimate, but I do not think that anything beyond that is legitimate or defensible.

    I hope that the Minister will deal with the practice that I have described and that he will shed some light on the progress of the discussions taking place between the two bodies concerned in dealing with this practice.

    Some time ago I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who was then the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, to draw the attention of the Director-General of Fair Trading ​ to this practice. It seemed to me that the Fair Trading Act might provide some opportunity for this practice to be examined. In a letter to me dated 1st August 1973, my right hon. and learned Friend told me that he could neither predict the attitude of the Director-General nor anticipate what action he would recommend but that his attention would be drawn to the problems which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and I had raised with him.

    Although I know it is not the departmental responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, I hope that he will be able to tell us how the Department of Trade is getting along and whether the Director-General of Fair Trading has yet come to any conclusion about whether his powers are wide enough to stamp out this unfair and illegitimate practice.

  • Ken Clarke – 1974 Speech on Foreign Affairs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ken Clarke, the then Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

    I begin by welcoming you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Chair. In doing so I shall be careful to avoid incurring your wrath by speaking at too great a length in my first speech before you. I am only sorry that lack of time will prevent my commenting on the number of spectacular maiden speeches which I have heard in this debate. I should like to say one particular word about the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) who now represents a considerable number of my former constituents. Having heard his first contribution to the House I am delighted to know that those constituents will be so well represented by him in the coming years.

    I wish to take this debate away from the international geographical ramblings indulged in by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), back again to the proposed renegotiation of the terms of our entry into Europe, which was dealt with by the Foreign Secretary. I was considerably reassured by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put this singularly puzzling part of the Labour Party’s programme now that it has formed a minority Government.

    Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said could have given much joy to anyone who still had any illusion that this country would leave the European Community at some stage. He assured us that the renegotiations would not be any kind of confrontation. It was clear that they would be conducted through the machinery of the Council of Ministers and within the set-up of the EEC as this Parliament legislated that the country should join it. I hope that, given the tenor of what he said, my party and the Opposition, who outnumber the Labour Party, will respond in kind and will not obstruct reasonable discussions with the Europeans if there is some prospect of a worthwhile advantage to our population coming from them.

    The Opposition believe that we negotiated entirely acceptable terms, and ​ we remain glad to have put them to Parliament and to have recommended them to the country. However, if in discussions with our fellow members this new Government are able to produce changes in the balance of interests between the member countries I am sure that no one will want to try to prevent progress being made which will be to the advantage of our population.

    Since we joined the Community the process of negotiation on issue after issue has been going on all the time, and in my view the Opposition should lend their weight to the Government’s advocacy of British interests where they put them forward legitimately in the negotiations.

    That is not the issue between the two sides of the House, of course. The issue that I feared might arise between my party and the Government was the idea that renegotiation would be some selfish or chauvinistic attempt to turn absolutely everything in the EEC to our short-term, narrow financial advantage. There are those Government supporters who would like to go through the details of Community policy extracting advantage from every single one of them in cash terms, in the mistaken belief that Britain has to be a net gainer on every head of European policy before the idea is at all acceptable. That is a strange method of bargaining for mutual advantage between any association of States, and it would be a strange foreign policy. But clearly that is not a policy which will be pursued by this Government. If it becomes the policy pursued by them under pressure from their backbenchers we shall have to take a sterner attitude.

    Having heard the Foreign Secretary shed a little more light on what he intends to negotiate about, it was interesting to hear that the terms of entry, which originally were what the renegotiation was to be about, were not to feature very large. Most of the terms on which this country entered the EEC have been overtaken by events.

    The sugar agreement remains an important element, and it was one about which we experienced difficulty when we entered the EEC. However, the details of the sugar debate at the time that we joined have now been overtaken by higher world prices outside the Commonwealth agreement. Again, the ​ terms for New Zealand seem to have faded, because they have not created any great practical problems. However, the Community’s agricultural policy, which was one of the basic items in our negotiations to enter, remains an important matter, and in April the new Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries faces a tough agenda, which would have been faced by his predecessor had my party won the election.

    For the immediate short-term future, the Foreign Secretary emphasised that he will try to stop domestic prices going up, and he reassured the British housewife in those terms. However, he knows quite well that the only risk of that arising in terms of any commodity, out of the April discussions, is in beef. If he intends to try to keep down the price of beef in the April negotiations I hope that he will take steps to guarantee beef production over the coming year or two as well.

    The only other term of entry to which the Foreign Secretary intends to bring attention is our contribution to the Community. That certainly can be discussed. The method of self-financing of the Community is coming into question in the Community itself, but it is one matter which obviously will have to be taken up by the new Government.

    The levy on imported foodstuffs will be an irregular source of finance to the EEC and it is looking of doubtful value. On the question of the 1 per cent. VAT, I am sure that the Government have every chance of negotiating zero VAT on foodstuffs and the like. That point was carried with the assistance of the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament only recently.

    The Government will find that all these matters are already on the agenda. If they wish to call it “renegotiation”, I trust that they will get on with the serious business of discussing all the other matters which Europe is evolving and which it is in our interests to get on with.

    Some regional policy clearly must come forward quickly. I hope that the Government will do better than we did. I am not criticising former Ministers for the delay, but there has been disappointment that no new regional policy has come forward.

    The democratic institutions must be reviewed and strengthened. Even if the Labour Government carry on with the almost laughable business of not sending representatives to the European Parliament, I hope that they will back up the efforts made by Conservative Members to increase the European Parliament’s budgetary and other powers in the Community.

    I turn now to the question of economic and monetary union. Half the EEC’s currencies are floating, and the snake is long since dead and forgotten. Some form of economic and monetary union is a logical successor to any free trading area if there is to be genuine free competition within that area. I am sure that any renegotiation will be welcomed.

    I could go on through all the matters that the Government have to “renegotiate” if they wish. For example, there is the matter of agreement with the 45 associated States. Progress needs to be made in strengthening the aid policy in the EEC.

    The social fund should be developed. This country is doing quite well out of the social fund, but I hope that that will be “renegotiated”.

    Our common bargaining position on GATT has to be looked at. I look forward to the Secretary of State for Trade contributing to the evolution of a common bargaining position for the European Commission in the GATT negotiations.
    The Foreign Secretary should take part in the regular meetings of Foreign Ministers. What he said about our position vis-à-vis the Americans and Europe and our relations with the Arab States are matters on which he will clearly make an extremely valuable contribution to the evolution of European foreign policy.

    All these matters are on the agenda and were being actively discussed in the institutions of the European Community before the election. What is being called “renegotiation” is merely carrying on the process of the previous Government, but paying lip service to one part of the Labour Party.

    The Government cannot, without prolonging a major political crisis, start negotiating on the matter of sovereignty to the extreme that many opponents of the EEC would wish. They cannot get round ​ the direct application of legislation once enacted by the Council of Ministers. They cannot throw out the entire common agricultural policy. They cannot abandon the principle of Community preference. These matters amount to complete withdrawal from the Community. I trust that this minority Government will not attempt to put them on the agenda.

    I have spoken in terms of “renegotiation”, but I am reluctant to allow this jargon to dominate the European debate in this country because it is not understood and is not what the country thinks we are talking about. The difficulty underlying the European debate is that the whole country is still split on the principles of entry, that the House is split on the principles of entry, and that the Labour Party is split on the principles of entry.

    Renegotiation is a comforting formula which was devised to take the heat from this political problem at a time when there are those who still want us to withdraw from the Community. The formula devised originally, that the Labour Party wanted entry into the EEC in principle but not on Tory terms, has not been believed by anybody.

    Is the Secretary of State for Trade urging British membership in principle only if the terms can be put right? Is the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) suddenly against the terms negotiated by the Conservative Government which he endorsed at the time by voting in favour of entry? Did Enoch Powell lend his support to the Labour Party in the election because he thought that some of the terms for renegotiation were what the public were demanding?

    The issue was whether we should join. That has been settled by Parliament. I trust that the Government will not use the charade of renegotiating to reopen this issue. I am delighted to see from his style that the Foreign Secretary intends to play for time and to allow these things to be conducted in a reasonable and civilised manner.

    At the end of this strange process, which is really only a political formula devised for the needs of the moment, the results will be put to the British people, presumably in a referendum. The referendum has an unhappy history in our recent ​ Political past. The Prime Minister refused to contemplate it in principle at the 1970 election. Even when the European Communities Bill was going through the House a referendum was rejected by the Labour Party. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—now Secretary of State for Industry—however, kept it going and finally pressed upon his right hon. Friends the need to go for a referendum, with the result that the present Home Secretary resigned on that issue and has, as far as I know, never supported it.

    Even then there was this division, and there is still genuine constitutional doubt about a referendum over the issue of whether or not we joined. How can there be a referendum on renegotiation once we have joined? We are not entirely clear what is being renegotiated, what question will be put to the British public, how it will be put and what the Government will say about it. I do not believe a referendum will ever take place. The Prime Minister said in the debate on the Queen’s Speech that there would “almost certainly” be a referendum. We all know and the Labour Party knows better than we do what “almost certainly” means in the politics of the Prime Minister. It is very little guide to his future actions. At the end of these renegotiations I trust that the Foreign Secretary with his great skill will be able to persuade his party that all the worst Tory blemishes will be removed and the whole thing can then perhaps be made to work in an acceptable Socialist way if we carry on as we are. If he fails to do so and if a fraudulent question is put to the public about a supposed process of renegotiation, I hope that the House will reject such a clear affront to its constitutional position and our political tradition once again as it did in the last Parliament.

    I trust that once the Government have got over the difficulty of saddling themselves with this strange election commitment they will get down to a sensible European policy aimed at producing a decent level of unity among the members. Even I, as a keen pro-marketeer, recognise the present problems of the lack of unity in Europe, the lack of a proper relationship with the United States, the difficulties of establishing a relationship with the Arabs, and general problems of payments deficits which will arise because ​ of higher oil prices. All these need a sensible European policy from the Government, which I hope they can soon find their way back to pursuing.

  • Jim Lester – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Jim Lester, the then Conservative MP for Beeston, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

    It is difficult to say at this moment that one is at home in the Chamber, but I felt immediately at home when I walked into the Lobby. I believe that that was mainly because the servants of the House thought that I was the reincarnation of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), whose name I happen to share but for one letter.

    It took me a little time to explain that there were little differences and that neither of us would be flattered if it were suggested that we either looked alike or shared political views. However, we are already having difficulties with crossed mail and so I should like to make a proposition to the hon. Lady: perhaps we should share a room and a secretary and, with the permission of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), form a regular pair, although I gather that that ​ is not the custom. However, if he would not allow us to form a regular pair, we ought to be allowed to pair regularly.

    It is a great honour to represent the new constituency of Beeston, because this is the first time that the name has appeared in the annals of the House. My constituency is situated in the west of Nottinghamshire and represents seven-eighths of the old constituency of Rushcliffe, which has been so well served in the House by succeeding Members. Currently, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) sits immediately below me. In the past, Lord Redmayne and Tony Gardner were hard-working and industrious Members.

    It is an area of settled communities of great variety and richness. It is a pleasure for me to speak of at least two aspects of the constituency which one feels are to be affected by Europe in the future. Industrially, it is as varied as its people, with many major companies. I was sorry to hear that the Leader of the House had ‘flu over the weekend—an illness that I shared with him—but I hope that the medicines produced by Boots, in my constituency, helped him through his difficulties, as they did me. Equally, as Members punch the buttons of the telephones in the House they may be interested to know that they were installed by Plessey Telecommunications, another big company in my constituency. I am sure that many people’s homes are warmed by the boiler which bears the name of this constituency.

    There is much more—light engineering, hosiery, knitwear, and 52 farms. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) talked of moving about on her bicycle and using it for getting around her constituency. She will be pleased to know that that also, although not built in, was certainly invented in Beeston.

    As one travels round the industrial constituency one finds that in many ways it has accepted the challenge of the EEC by collaboration, by working with other companies in Europe, and by genuine increases in exports. I believe that the marketing director of Boots described its increase in exports as “explosive”. As one who abhors violence in all forms, particularly in its present form in modern society, I enjoy using the word “explosive” when we refer to trade and exports within the Community.

    I am concerned that the uncertainties raised in the Queen’s Speech will not necessarily be helpful to the long-term livelihood of the area that I represent—an area which has accepted the challenge so well. When discussing fundamental renegotiation, one wonders whether it includes and takes account of the great deal of industrial groundwork that has been carried out over the past years, because within one year it can scarcely begin to bear fruit. I hope that these figures and calculations, when they come through, will also play a part when the benefits are calculated.

    My constituency is in the heart of the country, in Nottinghamshire. In the heart of the constituency there is the Festival village of Trowell, which was chosen by the right hon. Herbert Morrison at the time of the great Festival of Britain.

    There is, therefore, a constant reminder of where one’s heart should be.

    Equally, in my constituency the coal industry has played a big part. I want to get involved in this subject, particularly in the House, because in local government I have been involved in the coal industry in so many ways, dealing with closures and with the healing of the scars that the coal industry has left on the landscape. I view the industry’s future with great concern and interest, particularly within a European framework, in which it has played a founding part. The total of British energy, particularly the production from the coalfields of Nottinghamshire, will play a major part in the future.

    But Europe is not all industry. At the top of my constituency there is the little town of Eastwood, which was part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Ash-field (Mr. Marquand) until the boundary changes. It is a town with a character and accent of its own. It is also the birthplace of D. H. Lawrence—and many of us are quoting literary figures in our speeches today. D. H. Lawrence was a man of few inhibitions, and there is no question but that he drew strength from his background in this community, and those of us who read both his books and his poetry know it. It is significant, however, that it was not until he visited the Rhine that his poetry started to blossom and his pansies or pensées were really a product of the Suns of Tuscany—and ​ Tuscany is an area which I should like to consider my second home. This, therefore, is part of Europe and part of the important thinking that influences most of us.

    One of the most enjoyable occasions that I attended as a candidate was when the Eastwood comprehensive school staged a celebration of our entry into Europe. The young people of that school, with comparatively scarce resources, captured the culture, the variety, the cuisine, and the expanding horizon that was part of their natural history. They put that before many of us, including their parents. Whatever comes before the House concerning Europe I shall tend to judge in the light of these young people and hundreds of thousands like them, and their interests. We tend to talk about Europe as if it were just today; yet for many of us it is much more than that.

    The Queen’s Speech could mean that committed people would work for a better Europe. I was delighted to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). Indeed, one was comforted by the tone of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the practical way he approached the future. Many of us feel that there could be a tepid disinterest which is merely an excuse for withdrawal and a referendum which would just take account of the temporary discomforts.

    Yesterday the Secretary of State for Employment showed a fine sense of the House and of the historic past, but many of my colleagues and I are concerned that the House should show an equally fine sense of the historic future.