UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1974

  • Ivor Clemitson – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Ivor Clemitson, the then Labour MP for Luton East, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

    My first and pleasant duty as a new Member is to pay tribute to my predecessor Charles Simeons. He undertook much good and hard work in the constituency during the three and a half years he spent as Member for the old Luton constituency.

    ​ The new Luton, East constituency covers much of the same territory, and is one of those marginal seats which come within the are of the swingometer. If the pointer of that blessed instrument had stuck as far in the Labour direction as we in Luton, East pushed it, there would not even be a mathematical possibility of a defeat of Her Majesty’s Government in any Division, real or hypothetical. However, that was not to be. In voting behaviour, as in progress down the path of the affluent society, Luton is ahead of the times.

    I am not saying that Luton’s comparative affluence is as great as all that for most of its citizens. Even with the latest pay offer a track worker in Vauxhall Motors will earn only £39 for a flat week’s work. Even if the pay were twice that sum, or even greater, I am sure that there are few hon. Members of this House who would exchange what they might sometimes consider to be the tedium of this place for the tedium of a track in a modern motor car factory.

    My reference to wages of a number of my constituents may seem to be out of place in a debate on foreign affairs. After all, in foreign affairs are we not dealing with such great matters as the relationship between sovereign nation States? My point is that the sovereignty of separate nation States is a concept which to a considerable extent has been overtaken by events.

    I have referred to Vauxhall Motors, and the House might like to know that that company employs 35,000 people, most of whom work in Luton and Dunstable, The plant in my constituency is the largest of the three Vauxhall manufacturing plants. Yet in 1971 Vauxhall Motors provided only 1·8 per cent. of the profits of the parent company, General Motors, of which Vauxhall is a wholly-owned subsidiary. I have no need to remind the House that General Motors is the largest manufacturing company in the world. The story does not end there for Luton. The commercial vehicle section, what used to be known as Rootes Motors, is also in south Bedfordshire. And, incidentally, what used to be called Rootes Motors is now part of the Chrysler Corporation, the second of the three giant American car companies. Furthermore, also in my constituency is the British headquarters of Skefco, which is part of a world-wide company of ​ Swedish origin, SKF—the Swedish equivalent of which I shall not attempt to pronounce.

    Therefore three companies, Vauxhall, Chrysler (UK), and Skefco dominate the manufacturing scene in my constituency. All are part of huge, world-wide companies. The fashionable name for these companies is “multinational”, but that word is a misnomer because the word “multinational” merely means “many nations”, presumably implying that the companies concerned carry out operations in many countries. That is merely a platitude. A truer and more incisive term would be “supra-national” since these companies transcend nation States. Their size is enormous. The sales of General Motors exceed what is spent in this country on education, health and all the social services put together. The budgets of the largest supra-national companies make those of most nation States look like very small beer.

    If we were to rank nation States and supra-national companies together in cash terms we should find that our view of the world changed very considerably. We are so used to looking at maps of the world with their brightly coloured blocks representing the separate nation States that our minds are diverted from the realities of the wealth and the power of the supra-national companies. We need somehow to draw a new world map.

    It is often argued that the power wielded by super-national companies is used benignly and not malignantly. Our attention is drawn to the benefits conferred upon a host country by the activities of such companies—the investments they bring and the employment opportunities they provide. That is not the point, however true those arguments may be. The point is that enormous power is exercised within what I term these vast industrial states, and it is a power which is formally accountable neither to those employed in those companies nor to the nation States in which the industrial states operate. In the last analysis, more power over the people in my constituency is exercised from Detroit, New York and Gothenburg than from the town hall in Luton or from Westminster or Whitehall.

    Whether any nation State on its own is powerful enough or, perhaps more important, willing enough to control these ​ vast industrial states is open to question. In the long run, if the power that they wield is to be made properly accountable it will have to be done by separate nation States getting together to exert power over the super-national companies.

    I have always regarded the argument against the Common Market from the point of view of the loss of sovereignty as questionable. I say that not because I am enamoured of the Common Market. I am not. I believe that our first year of membership of the Common Market has been an unmitigated economic disaster. A mere £70 million trade deficit in 1970 has been turned into one of more than £1,000 million in 1973. So much for the great pro-EEC argument that entry would provide us with a massive market for our goods.

    When we talk of loss of sovereignty I wish that we were more concerned with the more important if less obvious and more insidious loss of sovereignty to supra-companies.

    It could be argued that the banding together of nation States in an organisation like the EEC is a significant step towards the assertion of proper political control over those supra-national companies, which is precisely the point that I was arguing a moment ago; but the reality seems sadly to be the reverse. Far from limiting their powers it seems to be increasing them, and it will go on increasing them, first, because removal of controls over investment and trade serves to accelerate the process of rationalisation within those companies. It makes little sense in the end, for example, to have two sets of people designing virtually the same vehicle in two different countries. The fears of a number of my constituents on this kind of score are not without basis in logic.

    The second reason why the EEC is increasing the powers of the supra-national companies is that the whole ethos of the EEC prevents any real control over the supra-national companies from being developed. It is little wonder that we do not find the large supra-national companies among the ranks of the opponents of the EEC.

    I am not a little Englander or a little Britainer. Like everyone who believes in the essential equality and brotherhood of mankind I yearn for the day when the ​nation States can disappear from the face of the earth, but I do not want them replaced by the faceless and unaccountable sovereignty of supra-national companies, nor by an organisation such as the EEC as it is at present under whose aegis those companies seem to bloom like hothouse plants. Sovereignty should be sovereignty of the people, and it is the restoration of sovereignty to the people—to all people wherever in the world they may live—which should be our primary aim and concern.

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1974 Speech on Foreign Affairs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alec Douglas-Home, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

    My first words must be of cordial congratulation to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as he assumes his office. We have both been the shadow, but the substance is very different. Mr. Harold Macmillan used to see the Foreign Office as a killer. Perhap I can do something to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that.

    The weighty decisions that the right hon. Gentleman will have to take will be relieved only by their variety and the help of those supremely well-qualified persons ​ who are always at call and who make up the Diplomatic Service.
    We debate foreign affairs sometimes in general and sometimes on more particular matters. On this matter we do not seek confrontation across the Floor of the House. I say that with, I hope, suitable gravity after yesterday’s proceedings. We cannot eliminate emotion from matters which in the end can involve peace and war, but I trust that the highest degree of consensus in the House will be our aim.

    Any wide-ranging debate is apt to look like a Cook’s tour. Therefore, I shall follow the right hon. Gentleman in being selective. My starting point will be roughly the same but my emphasis rather different in the order in which I put the problems facing this country and the world.

    Since the last war, foreign affairs in the countries of the northern hemisphere have been frozen into a pattern which, at worst, has been one of active confrontation, and, at best, one of rather sterile mobility. At very heavy cost, NATO has been able to provide security. The resolution and the will has been there to protect our way of life, and it has been worth while. We have lost nothing to the Communist world. But the question that nags and so far goes unanswered is, how do we reconcile security with détente? The right hon. Gentleman just touched on this matter. I should like to take it a little further.

    However passionate our desire for peace—of all things, that is the situation in which this country flourishes—we cannot allow ourselves to be diverted by the words of détente alone and we must look at the deeds.

    When we look at the deeds, the shortfall from the peace which we would desire is still very real. The hard fact of life is that, despite the most generous policy of Ostpolitik pursued by the Federal Republic of Germany, 20 years after the disarmament conference has been sitting in practically continuous session there have been no reductions in Soviet forces on Germany’s eastern frontier. I will not elaborate on that at the moment, because the right hon. Gentleman knows the facts. Despite the fact that there are now 45 Soviet divisions facing the Chinese on the Chinese frontier, those facing NATO have in no way decreased. On the contrary, their numbers are up, their equipment is regularly renewed, and they stand in a constant state of readiness. There are on that front far more men, machines and guns than are necessary for a defensive shield.

    I recall these facts of life to the House not to dramatise the situation, but to point out that, unless we face the realities, we are likely to get the answers wrong.

    I was glad to read in the Gracious Speech that NATO has the full support of the Government and that they feel that, as well as being a defensive alliance, it should be regarded as an instrument of peace. That is right.

    I hope that the words mean what they say, for we shall not arrive at that peace unless at all times NATO is equipped with the strength necessary to deter any military adventure. I was, therefore, relieved to read the words on defence in the Queen’s Speech, which are different from those used in the Labour Party’s conference resolution and in its election manifesto. If cuts were to be made in our expenditure, reckoning in hundreds of millions of pounds, on our defence forces and weaponry, it is certain—the right hon. Gentleman will find this when he studies the figures—that we could no longer parade as a reliable ally in NATO.

    Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that our proportion of GNP devoted to defence is higher than that of any of our Western European allies, with the single exception of Portugal, which is deeply involved in its African war? Secondly, I regret as much as the right hon. Gentleman the size of the Soviet Navy and Armed Forces, but may I ask why he always conveniently forgets the equal, if not greater, size of the United States Navy and Armed Forces?

    Mr. Cormack

    On whose side is the hon. Gentleman?

    Mr. Allaun

    I am on neither side. I am for peace.

    Sir A. Douglas-Home

    At least in that I am with the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly for peace.

    ​The hon. Gentleman referred to the percentage of our GNP. When his right hon. Friend examines the figures, I think that he will come to the conclusion that it is not us who ought to move down to the percentage of the others but that the others ought to move up to our percentage. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He must recognise how thin on the ground are the NATO forces relative to those of the Warsaw Pact, so we cannot reduce our strength very far. We should run a real risk of triggering off a process of defence reductions among the European members of the Alliance just when in the last few years Europe has begun to establish a more equitable sharing of the burden with the United States. I feel sure that when the right hon. Gentleman discovers how relatively thin on the ground are the NATO forces—we must include the formidable Soviet Navy—he will conclude that, rather than us go down in our expenditure, the others ought to come up in their expenditure.

    Mr. Callaghan

    How does the right hon. Gentleman square those sentiments with the cut of £178 million in defence expenditure that the Chancellor in the former administration announced just before Christmas?

    Sir A. Douglas-Home

    I do not say that defence should not take its share in any cuts that have to be made, but cuts anywhere near those proposed in the resolution which was passed at the Labour Party Conference, or even the hundreds of millions of pounds mentioned in the manifesto, would, I am confident, do grave damage to our NATO stance.

    There is one opening which the right hon. Gentleman may be able to exploit. When I was in Moscow at the end of last year the Russians agreed to the principle of undiminished security. That principle is vital in the proper sense of the word. But it is not translated into practice by unilateral disarmament, and progress, if it comes through disarmament, must come through disarmament which is mutual and balanced. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take time to impress upon his colleagues the reality of the military facts and to consult our allies before authorising savage cuts in defence expenditure. We can and we should pursue disarmament, but it must be mutual and balanced.

    ​There is available, apart from the disarmament conference of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, one instrument through which, if the Soviet Union and its allies will plan, one could start truly fruitful co-operation between the USSR and Eastern Europe and the West. That is the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. At the first of these discussions last July, with NATO and Community agreement and approval, I put forward proposals to develop contacts between the peoples of East and West Europe and for the better exchange of ideas which would lead to closer understanding. I admit that they were modest. They concerned the ability of people to marry and live in the country of their choice. They concerned facilities for divided families to reunite. They concerned wider exchanges of information through newspapers, magazines and television programmes, jointly agreed and controlled. The reception for that idea was polite, but all such ideas have so far fallen on stoney ground.

    I renewed them lately in Moscow, with the same negative result, and it is the failure to make progress on this wavelength of contact between people that makes it so difficult to build up that confidence between East and West which is a prerequisite of successful mutual and balanced force reductions. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will persevere, but somehow we must face the fact that the Russians have to be persuaded that the ordinary and compelling habits of interdependence which all of us have to practise are not aimed at interference with their internal affairs. I do not know whether it can be done.

    Certain recent events which are familiar to every hon. Member are rather discouraging and disheartening, and there is a long legacy of suspicion in Russia towards the outside world. But I hope that the gulf between ethical and social standards is not such that the East and the West cannot meet except at the extremities of armed neutrality at best and confrontation at worst. If there can be a real advance here, nothing will do more to restore confidence to a very badly shaken world.

    Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

    Those of us who think the defence of this country is still the number one priority are disturbed to hear an exchange ​ across the House which gives the impression that because the last Government reduced defence expenditure by £178 million, the new Government are entitled to reduce it by the same amount, or even more. If the last Government cut expenditure by that amount for strong economic reasons, there is good reason to believe that they reduced it to a point beyond which it should not go and that there should not be a competition to see who can go furthest.

    Sir A. Douglas-Home

    As I have said, defence expenditure is a matter of practical politics and we cannot escape from that.

    I believe that we are approaching the point among our NATO allies where the line on the frontier of West Germany is almost too thin and we have to watch that with the greatest care, because if we do not great damage could be done. Meanwhile, while the ways of reconciliation are tested we have no option but to pursue peace making and reconciliation from a basis of strength and through NATO.

    The Foreign Secretary devoted some time to various aspects of the affairs of the EEC. That is another organisation designed to contribute to the economic strength and political cohesion of Western Europe, and therefore peace. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Community should not be antagonistic but complementary to the United States. That is essential. Of course, it is not easy to build a new Community with a recognisable economic and political identity without getting in somebody’s way or with others thinking that the intention is to get in their way. But it is possible to build a Community which is complementary to the United States, and I have no doubt from what the right hon. Gentleman said today that his authority will be exerted in the interests of harmonious European-United States relations. An effort of understanding is necessary from both sides of the Atlantic.

    Perhaps the House will allow me a short analysis which might conceivably be helpful to clarify some of the factors which I think led to the recent discontent and irritations and which have tended to overshadow the basic identity of interest between Europe and the United States. During 1972 some American officials and ​ politicians evolved a theory of relations with Europe labelled in their picturesque vocabulary, the ball of wax principle. Put in its crudest form—and this was not uncommon—it meant that unless Europe conformed to American economic ideas, the United States would not feel obliged to pay such attention to Europe’s defence.

    Making every allowance for the fact that at the time America’s balance of payments was weak, that approach was psychologically and philosophically wrong. Of course there is a link between economics and defence, but of course, too, essentially the defence of Europe, of the Atlantic Ocean and therefore of the United States is indivisible. I hope therefore that no such mistake will come again from that side of the Atlantic.

    The ball of wax has now happily become unstuck. Some aftermath lingers which the Foreign Secretary will have to square up, and that can be done with good communications. By that I mean anticipating the possible differences which might arise between the United States and Europe and then dealing with them quietly with diplomatic methods before they burst out on to the public gaze. That must be right.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

    Some of us might go along with what the right hon. Gentleman said on the defence of the Atlantic. What worries many of us is the extension of Anglo-American cooperation into the Indian Ocean, the increasing number of naval bases such as Diego Garcia, and the increasing commitment. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he apparently agreed to the extension of these bases in the British Indian Ocean territories?

    Sir A. Douglas-Home

    The hon. Member is referring to what is mainly a communications centre. I shall explain one thing to the hon. Member about my own view on the matter. It is dangerous in an ocean such as the Indian Ocean for there to be a monopoly of one navy, and there was rapidly developing a monopoly of the Russian Naval Fleet.

    If I may turn back to the irritations felt between Europe and the United States, I believe it is also true that while the President of the United States always supported the concept of a Europe which would be able to speak with one voice, it was not recognised in America that what ​ was said might occasionally reveal a difference of approach to the matter in hand.

    Curiously enough, the economic approach to the review of the GATT was not one of these causes of difference. It was not, I think, a cause of difference because the Community took immense trouble to try to anticipate and meet the fears of the United States. It did this also in relation to possible trading relations with the African countries about which the Americans felt very strongly in relation to compulsory reverse preferences. These difficulties were removed, and I think that the Foreign Secretary will find that the paper produced by Europe on approaches to GATT comes very close to the American point of view. Again, good communications were responsible for such success as there was in that case.

    The Middle East presented, and presents, a more difficult problem. For many generations Britain and Europe have naturally been involved in that area, and they had much first-hand experience. Until lately, the United States has been reluctant to accept that if there were to be a future for the State of Israel, a fresh pattern of security would need to be evolved which did not involve occupation of Arab territories, because that would no longer serve. I expressed that point of view as long ago as 1970, but one must recognise that America was, America is, the only country which can deliver a peace in the Middle East on those lines, although others of us may be able to guarantee it.

    Doctor Kissinger is now making the most imaginative and strenuous efforts. I associate myself with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said about that. Dr. Kissinger deserves our full support in this area, where he is doing such a good job. It is good news that the oil embargo on the United States has been lifted and good news, too, incidentally, that the British and Americans are to begin to reopen the Suez Canal.

    Still, it is essential that there should be a follow up of the Washington conference on oil in a real attempt to find an identity of interest, which I think began to emerge there, between the producer and the consumer countries in the medium and longer term. No doubt that ​ conference will be followed up and there will be another stage.

    More generally, in NATO and the Community, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not approach either in a state of depression. He will find already drafted declarations which interpret favourably the complementary relations between the Community and the United States and which redefine in terms of intimate collaboration the spirit and purpose of the Atlantic alliance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek an occasion when those declarations may be published. Perhaps the 25th anniversary of NATO in April might be an appropriate time. Anyway, no doubt he will consider that matter.

    I recall a remark of the right hon. Gentleman in 1967, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said,

    “I do not know of any economic or political problems in this world which would be easier to resolve if Britain is outside rather than inside the Community.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1323.]

    I think that that was right then and it is right now. Our economic performance is surely not so good that we can neglect a free trade area of that size—[An HON. MEMBER: “It is not.”]—it will be a free trade area in a very few years—in which, provided we are competitive, we should derive rich industrial and commercial dividends which will repay the price of membership.

    This is not an exaggeration. A recent poll that the right hon. Gentleman may have seen after our first year of membership showed that 84 per cent. of the British firms expected long-term benefits, 78 per cent. said that they would be harmed should Britain withdraw, four out of ten showed that profits had risen for 1973 as a direct result of membership. In the capital goods sector, 86 per cent. considered that membership would help them and in the consumer sector 85 per cent.

    The lesson of this century, in which two world wars started in Western Europe, is surely that we should exchange rivalry for partnership. I will leave my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) to study what the right hon. Gentleman said today about reorganisation inside the Community. I keep an open mind on the form of any ​ modifications which may be possible or desirable.

    One thing that I do know—the right hon. Gentleman gave us a warning about this—is that although we all want cheaper food, we also want more production from our own fields. If he were to come to my constituency now, he would find knowledgeable stockmen arguing that the costs of production in Britain justify Common Market prices now, and that production will not come from our farms without this incentive. Therefore, we may have to look at the CAP with a slightly different, or at any rate an open, mind. My right hon. and learned Friend will make more detailed comments.

    Mr. Marten

    I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend quote that opinion poll, which was on a very limited front. Now that we are quoting opinion polls, did he see the one at the end of January, a very large one, which asked the question of the British people, “Do you think that it was a good thing or a bad thing that we joined the Community?”? Only 12 per cent. thought that it was a good thing that we had joined.

    Sir A. Douglas-Home

    Perhaps the people who gave that answer had not read the poll that I am quoting.

    But I do not think that I misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman if I conclude that he means to try to modify some of the Community policies from within the Commission and the Council. That is not exactly the impression that his leader conveyed, but his words are none the worse for that. This is an improvement. Of course one should negotiate or adapt —whatever word one uses—policies from within the European Council. There is no other way, unless one is prepared to leave the Community.

    At any rate, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will keep his eyes on what I call the strategic gains which are available to us, some of which I have mentioned in the economic field, and also, of course, the huge strategic gain on which he put his finger—the most important event that has happened in my lifetime since the war—the rapprochement between France and Germany. French-German rapprochement is the basis for the whole European Community. So I hope that he will keep ​ his eyes on the great strategic gains which seem to me possible in this adventure.

    Mr. Ronald Atkins (Preston, North)

    Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the real problem in Europe today is not enmity between members of the Common Market but enmity between Western and Eastern Europe and that the Common Market has exacerbated that enmity?

    Sir A. Douglas-Home

    I do not think that that is true. The Foreign Secretary is to meet representatives from Eastern Europe. I have seen quite a number of them and I know that they are not antagonistic to the Community. In fact, they expect to do a great deal of business with it.

    I want to turn to the complex problems of the Middle East. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Resolution 242 offers the best opportunity for a negotiated peace. That is common ground. It has, of course, its ambiguity, on which so far a settlement has foundered, but one can take comfort from one development and encouragement—the military withdrawal and the pattern on which it is proceeding. Israel and her neighbour Egypt have agreed that their forces should withdraw out of artillery range of each other and that a United Nations force should patrol in between.

    If that pattern can be carried forward in Sinai and further in the Golan Heights, which is the most important of all the frontiers for Israel, then there will be a chance of a peace which has eluded this area for so long. But the right pattern is there if it can be extended and taken a good deal further. However, some way must be found to give the State of Israel security other than by the occupation of Arab territories. It may be, as I hope, that Dr. Kissinger will be able to make the peace, and it may be that Europe will be able to help with guarantees. There is certainly a mutual interest in the United States and the Soviet Union in avoiding a clash, but that is not enough. I agree that the enterprising Dr. Kissinger has been extraordinary, and his sense of urgency is right.

    Finally—and I am sorry to say this —the Socialist Government seem to have a unique capacity for alienating friends. It is not as though there were any principle that I can see in their moral judgments. The Russians offend just as gravely ​ against the code of social ethics as the countries which incur the right hon. Gentleman’s displeasure. There are countries in Africa and Asia where people have been imprisoned without trial for years. These gestures are political. I do not believe they do any good, and they are not designed to help British interests, particularly that of our security. I hope the right lion. Gentleman will realise that Britain’s future lies in making friends and not shedding them.

    On any reckoning of the last few years, Britain has made the most of the diplomatic opportunities which were open to a Power of medium size. Some people have a nostalgia for past power. Others exaggerate what we can now achieve. But if we can pursue Britain’s own interests, at the same time reconciling them every time, if we can, with the needs of interdependence, then we shall serve the cause of greater stability and peace for which the right hon. Gentleman asked.

  • James Callaghan – 1974 Speech on Foreign Affairs

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Callaghan, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

    I have been looking at the balance of the speech that I have prepared, and I am aware that this is a general debate during which we ought to have a review of all foreign policy matters. In the light of the need to keep time down, at any rate during my speech, I shall endeavour to indicate the Government’s general approach to a number of topics as well as our particular approach and to go into some detail on the question of our relations with the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State can, in reply, take up in more detail some of the issues which I would otherwise have covered, and which may be raised during the debate.

    I wish to make some general observations indicating the stance which the Labour Government will take in their approach to foreign affairs. There are two particular issues upon which I wish to state our position clearly.
    The foreign policy section of our election manifesto was entitled “Peace and Justice in a Safer World”. How do we translate that into action? I begin by recommitting the Government to the purposes of the United Nations and to supporting it as the principal international organisation dedicated to the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

    No country has a greater concern for peace, security and prosperity throughout the world than has the United Kingdom. These are also the objectives of the United Nations. We recognise the ​ practical limitations of that organisation, but a Labour Government will make the fullest use of the opportunities for international co-operation which only the United Nations is in a position to offer on a global basis.

    Complementary to our support for the United Nations will be the rôle which we shall accord to the Commonwealth. This historic association brings together more than 30 independent nations in a grouping which nowadays is fashioned not by conquest, or political expediency, or material self-interest, but rather by a common desire to meet together, to exchange opinion and advice, and for each of us to profit from the diverse experience of the others.

    Its value is not limited to the headline-making and spectacular Heads of Government meetings. Of equal importance is the multitude of other meetings conducted under the Commonwealth’s auspices. There is the Commonwealth Foundation, which exists to promote contacts between professional associations and individuals throughout all the member States.

    Co-operation also takes place in such important matters as science, health, law and economics, ranging from the telecommunications network to regional arrangements such as the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation.

    However, this machinery, although important, is only the nuts and bolts. The real value of the Commonwealth is more intangible. It is the common feeling we share that its very membership ensures that it has an outward-looking attitude towards the problems of the world—an attitude which the present Government will encourage and share. We shall give our full support to proposals which will bring the Commonwealth countries closer together.

    I make clear at the outset that we shall have a dual thrust in the purpose of our policy, by using both the United Nations and the Commonwealth to the maximum of our power.

    I turn now to the European Economic Community. We have consistently said that the entry negotiations and agreement of 1970 did not sufficiently protect British interests. That is why the Gracious Speech committed the Government to a fundamental renegotiation of Britain’s terms of ​ entry. I should like to say how we propose to begin the process of renegotiation, but before doing so I wish to detain the House for a moment with an issue of equal, if not greater, importance; namely, the recent speeches and remarks of President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger, which have called attention to the unsatisfactory state of repair into which relations between the Community and the United States have fallen. By implication this raises the question with which we, and, I hope, all in the House, are much concerned; namely, the political direction that the Community itself seems to be taking.

    We must go back to October 1972, in Paris, where a meeting of Heads of State and of Governments, which was attended by the Leader of the Opposition, was held. The Governments present pledged themselves to:

    “Set themselves the major objective of transforming before the end of the present decade … the whole complex of the relations of Member States into a European Union.”

    I hope that the House notes that all of this was to be done by 1980.

    A year later, at Copenhagen, the Heads of State and of Governments declared that they intended to speed up this work—it was not going fast enough. In the meantime, they confirmed their common will that Europe should speak with one voice.

    My colleagues and I, and some members of the present Opposition, frequently pressed the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. Gentlemen to tell us, and, more important, to tell the country, what these epoch-making declarations really meant. They were undertakings which had been entered into without consultation with Parliament, or, even less, with the British people.

    I was sceptical from the outset about their attainment, but either the Conservative Government would not say, or, as I suspect was more likely, they did not know. However, what must be clear to them now that they have fought an election recently is the deep scepticism that the British people feel about these objectives and the general political direction that Europe seems to be taking.

    Clearly, we cannot enter into definitive discussions on the concept or form of such a union until our renegotiation has settled the whole basis of our future relationship with the Community.

    Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness) rose——

    Mr. Callaghan

    I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I promise that I intend to go into some detail.

    Mr. Johnston

    The right hon. Gentleman referred at the outset of his speech to the election and to the fact that in his view its result demonstrated deep scepticism by the British people regarding our membership of the Community. In view of the result of the election, I do not understand on what evidence the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement.

    Mr. Callaghan

    I shall repeat my exact words. I spoke about the deep scepticism that the British people feel about these objectives and the general political direction that Europe seems to be taking. It is about those matters that I found the scepticism to exist. There is a divided view whether we should be in membership, but there is a very sceptical view about what is happening under the umbrella of Europe.

    The fact that these issues have hardly been debated is in itself sufficient reason for my reminding the House what the previous Government committed us to. But we now have an additional factor—the doubts expressed from the other side of the Atlantic. The recent statements that have been made there should start a great deal of soul-searching about what kind of Europe it is that the Community is seeking to create and what is to be the relationship between that Community and the United States.

    I wish to indicate our approach to these matters. First, our manifesto states:

    “A Labour Britain would always seek a wider co-operation between the European peoples.”

    I shall enlarge on that a little later. Parallel with that, Britain needs to base her system of alliances for defence and other purposes, as well as our system of trading arrangements, on a much wider foundation.

    These two issues need not be in conflict, but in our estimation it is not possible indefinitely to sustain a close alliance with the United States on matters of defence, which involve the closest co-operation and interdependence, without a parallel co-operation on matters of ​ trade, money, energy and so on. My understanding from my early contacts with Community countries is that most members of the Community agree with that approach. In the light of M. Jobert’s speech at the weekend, perhaps all of them agree.

    I must emphasise that we repudiate the view that Europe will emerge only out of a process of struggle against America. We do not agree that a Europe which excludes the fullest and most intimate co-operation with the United States is a desirable or attainable objective.

    That does not mean that European countries become satellites of the United States. A Labour Government will certainly want a great measure of control over multinational enterprises and companies in this country. We are in favour of maintaining the national identity of key enterprises either by a measure of public ownership or in other ways. Nor should anyone wish to see a Community organised in the interests of large-scale industry at the expense of the ordinary worker.

    Some may have found President Nixon’s rough words the other day unduly harsh. But at least they had the effect of introducing a greater sense of realism, and that has been a scarce commodity in much of the discussion over the past two years. The peoples of Europe have been treated to too much high-flown rhetoric and not enough substance. Our belief is that the Community should accept more modest and attainable goals.

    I have no doubt that the attitude of this country and of other countries in the Community to world problems will be found to be similar on a number of matters. But surely the timetable laid down in the Paris Summit communiqué, both about union itself and about economic and monetary union, were never attainable from the start. On these questions, events over the past 12 months speak for themselves. I need remind the House only of the ill-fated “snake”, which choked after its first indigestible meal.

    We shall scrutinise with great care any future proposals for money parities fixed by the Community. We do not accept that such arrangements can be allowed to conflict with our objective—the much better objective—of making new monetary arrangements on a world basis.

    What else will underlie our attitude towards the Community? First—and I come to a positive matter here—it is in our interests and in everyone else’s to foster the good relations that have grown up between France and Germany over the past 25 years. I remember vividly the occasion at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1950 when, after historic debates, the doors were flung open and for the first time the German delegates entered and sat down as colleagues among the French and the remainder of us, five short years after the war. It was a moment that I shall not forget. There are now only three of us in the House who were present on that occasion—you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) and myself. It was a most moving moment so soon after the war to see the German delegates come in. at a time when there was much more feeling than there is now.

    The memory remains with me of a day which has led to 25 years in Western Europe in which tension between France and Germany has been at the minimum. We must keep it that way. Therefore, we shall seek good relations with both France and Germany in particular. We shall do nothing to try to come between those two countries. Obviously, we shall also seek to have the best relations with the other members of the Community. I look forward to my visit to Herr Walter Scheel and to Chancellor Brandt, and also to meeting M. Jobert and my other colleagues in the very near future.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

    I do not disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but will he tell us whether the fundamental aim of the renegotiations is to stay in the Community or come out?

    Mr. Callaghan

    If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech, he may find at the end that his question is answered. I am now on the question of political co-operation. I shall come to the matter of renegotiations in a few minutes.

    I want to make the next point, having made it clear that no one will use us to try to drive a wedge between France and Germany, if that were possible. Our aim is quite contrary. Many of us have lived through two world wars. Our approach ​ as a Government will be to intensify the system of political consultation and co operation and, in so far as it is possible, to work out common positions through joint discussion with the Community countries.

    This seems to us to make sense, but it cannot be to the exclusion of bilateral talks or talks within international organisations. We have a natural affinity with the other countries of Western Europe; it is not limited to the Nine.

    There are, for example, the Scandinavian countries, with which we have close links. I must emphasise again that for us the value of political consultation and co-operation will be ruined if it appears to take an anti-American tinge or if consultation with the United States is inadequate. Of course, we do not always expect to agree with the United States.

    That is not the point. That is a different matter. We shall be ready to start talks and arrangements that may be made between the Community and other groupings.

    There are two in particular that occur to me. First, there are the proposed talks with the Arab States. We certainly welcome such a dialogue between the Community and those States. But I assume that neither the Community nor the Arab States themselves would want that dialogue to hamper Dr. Kissinger’s efforts to secure a measure of peace in the Middle East. It is clear that he believes that at present the beginning of that dialogue would do so.

    Therefore, it seems to me to make common sense that I should assume that the Nine—going to them as I shall, I hope not with any posture other than that of an anxious inquirer after the truth—I want to explore the problem further with the United States to clear up any misunderstandings that may unfortunately have arisen, both on the range of the talks and on their timing. That is the proposition I shall put when I meet my colleagues on this subject.

    We think that in principle there is much to be said for having these discussions with the Arab States. As soon as we can get the misunderstandings out of the way, let us get on with them. Leaving the question of oil on one side, the Government have a strong desire that bilateral talks on trade between Britain and the Arab States should continue when they already exist and should be intensified.

    Next, a Labour Government will seek in the course of our approach to the Community that Europe’s markets shall be more open to the world. We believe that it would be advantageous to Europe as a whole if there were wider access to European markets for foodstuffs from such traditional suppliers as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, the Argentine and others. We regard this question of access as vital to ourselves in this country, whatever Europe may think about it.

    I have seen many prophecies. In my view, he is a bold man who prophesies what will happen to future world prices for foodstuffs and other commodities. We have seen their prices go up and we have seen them go down. Whatever the temporary position—and I hope that people will not base their long-term aspirations on what could be only a temporary position—two bountiful harvests in succession would make a substantial difference to the relationship between EEC prices and world prices.

    Next we shall seek a renegotiation of the financial burden imposed upon Britain by the Community budget. The division of the burden within the Community must be fair. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President outlined last night, and indeed as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said again today, we shall ensure that arrangements are made for this Parliament at Westminster to have the fullest opportunity to scrutinise and to reach conclusions on the arrangements agreed at Brussels.

    It is against this background that I look forward to meeting my colleagues, the other Foreign Ministers, in Luxembourg on 1st April. With the future direction and shape of the Community in a state of flux and its relations with the United States so uncertain, it would be irresponsible for Britain to leave an empty chair.

    We shall discuss these urgent matters relating to prices and other issues of importance within the Community. Nor shall we aim to conduct the negotiations as a confrontation. It is hardly necessary for me to add that a Labour Government will embark upon these fundamental talks in good faith not to destroy or to wreck but to adapt and reshape the policies of the Community and our terms ​ of membership in such a way that they will better meet the needs of our own people, as well as of others in Europe, and meet our conception of the Community’s relations with other States.

    It is not unhelpful that these two strands come together at this point in time—namely, our general concern with the political shape and direction of Europe and the impact of the terms of entry upon our own people and upon our traditional trading partners. Even if we had not wished to raise the political questions, President Nixon’s remarks ensured that this would happen.

    Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

    Does my right hon. Friend’s statement presuppose the fact that we shall renegotiate the terms of the Treaty of Rome?

    Mr. Callaghan

    If my hon. Friend will wait, he will find that I shall come even to that point. I am sorry if I am detaining the House overlong, but it is important that we should try to set out the definitive position. I hope that I have covered most of the questions as regards our principal approach. The details will have to be worked out later. We shall start with a genuine attempt to see whether our approach and our interests can be accommodated by the other members of the Community. If they cannot, we shall try to find out whether we can overcome the differences that separate us.

    One immediate question we shall raise, because it comes before us straight away, is that of domestic prices. Higher prices are partly the result of an increase in world prices, as was said during the election, but partly because of the requirements placed on us by the Community, and there can be no escape from that. The first may be inevitable; the second is unacceptable, especially in our present inflationary situation.

    This is the first question that must be looked at urgently, and it arises immediately at the meeting of the Agricultural Council on Thursday and Friday of this week, which is intended to fix the intervention prices for the 1974–75 season. We shall not by then, of course, have had time to work out our renegotiation proposals in full. But, in accordance with our general approach to participation in ​ Community meetings, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be attending to ensure that our interests are safeguarded. His objective will be to make certain that for the British housewife there will be no rise in prices in basic foodstuffs as a result of that meeting. We cannot accept imported inflation.

    Other matters with which we shall he concerned in our renegotiations include the protection of the interests of the Commonwealth and other developing countries. That will mean a review of aid policies and of the arrangements for the Community’s trade with Commonwealth countries.

    There is some difference of opinion whether achievement of our objectives will require some amendments to the Treaty of Accession. If we find on this issue or that that other members of the Community are unable to agree within the existing treaty framework to improvements which we feel are vital to our existing position, the question of amending the Treaty of Accession would arise, and we are examining this to see whether it is likely to do so. Given the general background which I have outlined, we shall begin with a subject by subject approach. We shall attempt to achieve our objectives in a series of parallel, co-ordinated negotiations. We shall not be seeking a confrontation, though other members of the Community will recognise that we are unable to carry forward further processes of integration which could prejudge the outcome of the negotiations.

    Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

    I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his healthy and robust speech. Since the Labour Party manifesto said

    “… whilst the negotiations proceed and until the British people have voted, we shall stop further processes of integration, particularly as they affect food taxes”,

    may we have an assurance that there will be no further integration from this moment onwards?

    Mr. Callaghan

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), and I am delighted to see that he is such a keen student of Labour’s manifesto. Indeed, had he fought the election on it he might well have had an even ​ larger majority than the one he achieved. The question of integration and intervention prices is a very difficult one, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is going to Brussels to examine the situation this week. I want only to confirm the objective and not the means. The objective is that there shall be no increase in domestic prices to the British housewife in the shop. The kind of negotiations my right hon. Friend will undertake we must leave to him. But our basic requirement—and I am sure that this is the way in which the British family will see the situation—is that, whatever arrangements are made, they will not result in higher prices. That is the way in which my right hon. Friend will approach the matter. There is also a technical problem, and the hon. Member for Banbury, with his usual acuteness, has seized upon it. I am glad to say that the Minister of Agriculture has also noticed it.

    Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

    I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary to take a little further the manner in which he dealt with the question put to him by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) and to clarify the juridical framework within which the Government see the processes of renegotiation. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about his intentions, if any, to seek amendment to the Treaty of Rome, and he replied in the context of possible amendment to the Treaty of Accession. Can he tell the House whether the Government have any proposals to make under Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome involving the possible amendment of that article? Is that matter included in any renegotiation, and how does he assess the prospects of achieving success in any such effort, bearing in mind the fact that amendments under the treaty have to go back to the national parliaments for their individual ratification?

    Mr. Callaghan

    The last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question gives a clue to the approach that we ought to make. Anything that will require the agreement of all the parliaments throughout the Community will be extremely difficult. Therefore, I should not like to start off from that point of view. We must see how we go and where we get. We start with what we regard as the ​ vital interests of this country. We shall see where they are brought short against the Treaty of Accession.

    I come back to the Treaty of Accession because that is the major obstacle. At that stage we shall have to see whether we go to the various countries concerned and say to them “We are sorry, but we regard this matter as being so vitally important that it will require amendment to the Treaty of Accession”. If then we find at a later stage that the Treaty of Rome itself is an obstacle, there will need to be a good deal of discussion before we get to that point. We shall come back to the House and discuss the matter here. I hope that there will be no hole-in-the-corner settlement of this kind of issue. We all recognise how serious and important this kind of approach would be. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand my general approach. I assure him that I am not looking for obstacles or rocks which have not yet appeared. I can see that there are plenty of rocks in the way. I have not yet seen any rocks which arise under the Treaty of Rome. If they come, so much the worse. We shall have to navigate round them when we get to them. But for the moment that is not my approach. We have enough problems to deal with in the approach that I have taken so far, and I hope that no one thinks that the approach underrates the difficulties of the task upon which we are embarked.

    It must be understood that we are in earnest. We are not reacting to other people. We are stating what we believe to be our fundamental approach and our fundamental interest. We believe that in a number of cases our interest coincides with that of other countries in the Community and that our general approach to the Community outlook is one which should be accepted. We shall approach it on that basis, seeking the co-operation of others and trying to persuade and convince others.

    Our purpose is to look at the operation of the Community in both the economic and the political spheres not in a spirit of destructive criticism but of constructive realism. We shall be willing to take adequate time for these important discussions and negotiations, though everyone will recognise that they cannot be dragged out indefinitely.

    In the light of the progress or lack of it that we make, we shall consult the ​ views of the British people and consider at what stage it will be right to submit the results of our efforts to them so that they may declare their opinion. In view of the unique importance of these discussions, we intend that they should have the opportunity to do so.

    I have tried to set out our approach as clearly as I can without filling in the details. But the House will understand and, I hope and believe, will support this kind of approach.

    Against the background that I have outlined of our approach to the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Community itself, we shall look for opportunities to build a safer and more productive relationship with the Soviet Union. In particular, we shall use our influence to bring the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, now in its second stage at Geneva, to a successful conclusion. If we could do so, that would justify the original imaginative initiative on which it started and would reward the efforts that have been expended upon it.

    Then there are the even more complicated and important MBFR negotiations in Vienna. These must not be allowed to take the sterile path of so many earlier disarmament conferences. I am reviewing the present state of the discussions there, and we shall help them forward as much as we can. We shall also make it our business to back and stimulate this multilateral diplomacy by developing bilateral relations with the countries of Eastern Europe up to the limit that the situation in each case allows.

    Following on my visit to Eastern Europe last summer, I look forward to my discussions with the Foreign Minister of Poland, who will be visiting this country in April.

    Success in the process of détente will be of the greatest value to us all. There is no country involved in NATO or the Warsaw Pact which could not think of a million worthwhile things to do with money saved from the crippling arms burden.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in the process of reviewing the contents of the Labour Party manifesto on the matter of defence in order to reduce the level of our defence ​ expenditure, and both he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly have more to say about the reductions which are to be made.

    The quest for savings would be easier if there were signs from Eastern Europe that they were no longer bent on expanding their armed forces and their weapons programmes. At the Labour Party Conference last year I said that I would dearly like an agreement which would remove NATO weapons targeted on the Soviet Union but that for such an agreement to become effective it would need to remove the threat of Warsaw Pact weapons targeted on NATO.

    However we get on in this connection—and we shall do our best to make it succeed—I think that there is common agreement that the largest immediate threat to peace lies perhaps not in Europe but in the Middle East. By a fortunate coincidence, in the week before the election was called, I was able to visit the Middle East and have conversations with both Mrs. Meir and President Sadat.

    My talks with President Sadat convinced me that there is a possibility of achieving a situation in the area perhaps short of absolute peace but giving the region an era of stability unknown in more than a generation. Despite what is happening at the moment, I still believe that to be true, because the will is present.

    Likewise, my talks with Mrs. Meir left me in no doubt that there is an overwhelming desire for a secure peace in her country, too. But we should be clear that it is Israel which runs the greater risks in the search for peace.

    I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the the herculean efforts of Dr. Kissinger, whose tireless work has done so much to bring about the present situation of even modified optimism.

    Our own policy is that we stand ready to play any role that would be constructive in peace-keeping or in the negotiations, but we do not wish to push ourselves forward. I discussed this with both leaders with whom I talked. There is no occasion for Britain to push herself forward unless there is a genuine desire on behalf of the main protagonists for our participation. Then we should consider it very seriously.

    We believe that the earliest possible just and lasting solution will come through the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242. Such a settlement will have to take account of the fundamental principles of that resolution—Israel’s withdrawal and the right of every State in the area to live in peace and security. We also believe that there will be no permanent peace unless a settlement provides for a “personality” for the Palestinian people—a word which I choose deliberately for reasons which may not be immediately clear but I believe it to be the best word in the present circumstances.

    The other problem resulting from the Middle East conflict—namely, the energy crisis—also needs urgent treatment. When Dr. Kissinger came to London three months ago, the Prime Minister and I had the opportunity of talking to him, and we both welcomed his ideas for cooperation between energy producers and consumers, and we believe that the Washington Energy Conference was a useful and timely initiative.

    The repercussions of the massive increase in oil prices has transformed the world in which British foreign policy operates. International trade and finance are not accustomed to accommodating the levels of money now available to the oil States. We desire the closest possible co-operation with the major producing and consuming countries on such matters as price and demand management and research programmes, and we shall follow up the prospects of effective international action on the economic and monetary impact of the new situation. Some of the ideas now being put about are very interesting and could transform our relations.

    Our capacity to help the less developed countries will obviously be determined to a great extent by the pace of our economic recovery. But our manifesto clearly commits us to the United Nations targets, and we shall seek to achieve them in the years ahead.

    I apologise for dealing in the final part of my speech with one other important issue on which there may be differences between us. It is the area of British interest and involvement in Southern Africa, where there could be the seeds of a wider conflict.

    It is our view that the prosperity and stability of the African continent depends in the long run on removing the sources of racial and other frictions between its different parts. We shall play our part in the international community in seeking to end discrimination and injustice in Southern Africa in conformity with the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants.

    British firms trading with South Africa have a special duty towards their nonwhite workers who are prevented by apartheid regulations from defending their rights and interests through the process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, I welcome the public and parliamentary interest in the performance of British firms operating in South Africa and, in particular, the recent publication of the report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of this House which the Government will examine in detail.

    We shall continue to follow the policy which we pursued in our previous administration of embargoing the sale of arms to South Africa in accordance with our international obligations. We shall give no help or co-operation to the South African Government which could be used for internal repression or the enforcement of apartheid.

    With regard to Portugal’s involvement in Southern Africa, we made our position clear during Dr. Caetano’s ill-starred visit last year. It is our view that the Portuguese Government, in the interests of their own people as much as in those of the peace and stability of the African continent, should state clearly their acceptance of the principle of self-determination for their dependent territories and should embark upon specific programmes to give it effect. Meanwhile, our policy will be to give the Portuguese Government no assistance by way of sales of arms for their military operations in Africa.

    There is still one area of Southern Africa which remains a specifically British responsibility—Rhodesia. I imagine that we all want to see a settlement of that problem, but it must be one which we are satisfied enjoys the support of the African majority there. The Africans themselves must play a major part in working out the terms of a settlement which they could support. Until that happens we shall continue the policy of sanctions and examine whether they can be ​ made more effective. Whether they agree or disagree, the white minority in Rhodesia will recognise, in what I have said, Britain’s clear determination to accept nothing short of an honourable settlement and that they face a lonely future if they continue along their present road.

    Nations often find themselves in the same difficult position as individuals. We frequently have dealings with people whose politics we disagree with and whose actions we dislike. So it is with countries. There are nations whose internal repression of their citizens we deplore. Whether such nations fall on the right or on the left of the political spectrum, the case for speaking is even stronger when silence might be deemed to be consent or indifference. The violation of human rights has the same degrading consequence for the individual as for the State which practises it whether he resides in a country that calls itself left or right.

    More than ever we are part of one world in terms of human rights, in terms of the need for defence co-operation, or the need to overcome the world’s interlocking problems in economic, energy and monetary matters.

    I realise that the degree to which Britain can exercise a positive and independent influence in the world is limited. It depends to a great extent on regaining our economic strength. The country is back at work and the Government are pursuing policies which, in my judgment, will promote social unity and greater national cohesion. That is the best foundation for our hope that Britain can make an increasingly influential contribution to the peace and prosperity of the whole world.

  • Roy Hughes – 1974 Speech on the Spencer Steelworks

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roy Hughes, the then Labour MP for Newport, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I would say at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a delight it is to me to see you in your elevated position, and as a fellow Welsh Member I ask you to accept my sincere congratulations.

    I wrote to Mr. Speaker seeking this debate the day after I was elected back to the House, and following promises that I made to people in my constituency during the election campaign. The Spencer works employ nearly 9,000 people, and many hundreds more are employed by ancillary concerns attached to them. The works are literally the cornerstone of the economy of Newport.

    Recent happenings at these works have been the subject of considerable public concern. They have been highly detrimental to the town of Newport in its quest for new industry. Secondly, they have been politically damaging to the Labour Party which profoundly believes in public ownership of the steel industry.

    The immediate sequence of events was a small dispute, following which the British Steel Corporation decided to close the works and to lay off many thousands of workpeople. Following that, the payment of unemployment and other benefits to those workpeople was stopped. In addition, an offensive letter was sent to each workman at the plant, and this all at the height of the General Election campaign. The letter caused tremendous bitterness in the area. Housewives as well as workpeople at the works were highly indignant, and I can truthfully say that at times there was almost a riotous situation there.

    There are a number of questions which I want to pose to the Minister. Who gave instructions to Mr. Stanley Brooks, the Llanwern group director, to close the works? Was the corporation responding to the dictates of the Government of the ​ day in their law and order campaign? In other words, was it a politically motivated decision? Those are fundamental questions which I feel need answering.

    These works have a tremendous potential, but their history to date has been nothing short of a disaster. They were opened in 1962 by Her Majesty the Queen, following a decision in 1958 by the then Macmillan Government. There was a controversy over the site. Consequently, half of the original plant came to Newport and half went to Scotland. The Newport side of the venture nevertheless cost about £200 million, but due to the split there was a production bottleneck right from the start. There was not enough steelmaking capacity to keep the massive and extremely expensive rolling mills working to capacity. What is more, the plant was opened at a time when the product produced was plentiful. Thus, in the early ‘sixties it was selling its product at below market price. The works certainly got off to a bad start.

    My former colleague, Mr. Donald Anderson, who was then Member for Monmouth, and I fought hard to remedy matters. Eventually, in January 1970, the last Labour Government authorised what became known as Scheme C to provide, among other things, a third blast furnace and to bring the steel-making capacity into line with the rolling mills.

    After the 1970 General Election, however, the new Conservative Government held up the scheme, although later they gave the go-ahead again. Such indecision, nevertheless, was hardly likely to inspire confidence among the workpeople.

    What is more, over the years the cost of the scheme has escalated from the original £48 million to £90 million. Another damaging factor was three years ago at the works, when an investigation was held by the fraud squad into a possible £300,000 fraud involving the hire of plant and equipment. Although the Director of Public Prosecutions eventually decided to take no action in the matter, this, again, tended to undermine confidence.

    These factors have been highly detrimental to the works, but they had nothing to do with the actions of the work force. Nevertheless, I agree that many of the current difficulties are about industrial relations—in other words, about ​ people. When the works started, people flocked there from West Wales, from many of the villages and towns of the hinterland. New communities sprang up, and ever since there has been a certain lack of social cohesion. Likewise, there has been the lack of security at the works. This is partly due to the production bottlenecks to which I have referred.

    I have received numerous deputations over the years from the trade unions calling for a fully integrated plant. There is the question of iron ore supplies. The works are at present supplied by small ships of less than 30,000 tons coming into Newport docks but there was an Uskmouth scheme passed by the House in 1967 which would have provided for much larger vessels. After public ownership, this scheme was, unfortunately, pigeon-holed. Now we have the ridiculous decision by the corporation to supply iron ore for the works through Port Talbot and bring it 50 miles over land. A new harbour would cost a fraction of the cost of new works, and the Spencer Works would derive tremendous benefit from a harbour at Uskmouth. Instead, the works are being treated merely as a subsidiary of Port Talbot, and this, again, is highly detrimental to morale.

    Why cannot the corporation management see this? It has much to answer for and it is no good its trying to put all the fault on the workpeople, as it is doing through its public relations department. There was a major dispute there in early 1973 over the sacking of a boilermaker. A strike by 280 men ensued which lasted over seven weeks. Eventually, over 5,000 men were laid off and the dispute was estimated to cost £10 million. It was a completely unnecessary dispute.

    I do not want to go into the pros and cons of the dispute, but an independent tribunal reinstated the man. I said at the time—and I was fully supported by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary—that this man should have been suspended with pay and then a tribunal could have been established to go into the whole matter. But what the BSC wanted was that the man should be laid off without pay and that then the tribunal should sit.

    As I said at that time, it is like the judge in the Western film who said, “You are guilty, but you will have a fair trial”.

    This behaviour is against all the concepts of British justice. Again, at the end of last year I was approached by one of the trade unionists at the plant who made allegations of telephone tapping. I took up the matter in a reasonable manner with the British Steel Corporation management.

    After eight weeks I had received no satisfactory reply and I therefore indicated that I intended to raise the matter in the House. Subsequently, the British Steel Corporation issued a statement in The Times to the effect that it had reviewed its procedures for checking against the misuse of company telephones and that the previous practice at some works of monitoring certain calls had been discontinued.

    Again, I pose the question: are actions of this kind likely to promote confidence and good will among workpeople? Another factor from which the works is suffering is in their choice of management personnel. There has been an invasion from the North of England from people previously associated with the United Steels Company. They have worsened the situation at the works. They do not understand the psychology of the workers. The Welsh temperament is different from theirs. There has been a long and great history of steel making in South Wales, but there is no vision among the new management staff. I believe that the corporation should bring to the works Mr. John Powell, the formerly highly successful manager at Ebbw Vale, now at Shotton. He has the verve and flair to make a success of this potentially great works.

    I turn to the present scandal of the non-payment of benefits to the people who were laid off as a result of the recent dispute. I have been swamped with requests from workers about the injustice of this situation. My telephone at home has hardly stopped ringing. The dispute originally affected only a handful of people. Why should thousands of people be denied benefits as a result?

    I call upon the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to contact the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social ​ Services to see that these benefits are paid without further delay. There is a feeling of righteous indignation in our area at the present time about the situation at these works. People are simply demanding that the situation be looked into.

    Tonight I wish officially to report this request. The inquiry must be national in character. Perhaps the steel committee of the TUC would be the appropriate body for it, together with representatives of top-level management of the British Steel Corporation and also of the Department of Employment.

    There was a series of industrial disputes some years ago at the Port Talbot works, but eventually, after the major inquiry there, the air was cleared and it heralded a new era of industrial relations at the plant. Something similar is called for at the Spencer works. To my mind, it is not only management-worker relationships that should be discussed but also the future development of the works, to build it into a fully integrated plant, as I mentioned earlier. These are the moves that need to be urgently made to restore morale at these works. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some clear assurances tonight about these matters and authorise the establishment of an inquiry so that the position can be clarified for the people in my constituency.

  • Gordon Wilson – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Gordon Wilson, the then SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I am honoured to be here today to represent the constituency of Dundee, East. Dundee is Scotland’s third city. It is probably well known as such to all hon. Members, although there has been a distressing tendency on the part of the Scottish Office and other Departments in recent years to omit Dundee from some of the development maps. I hope that that will not occur in the future. Dundee was known traditionally for jute, jam and journalism. Today, it has a broad section of modern industry covering business machines, watches, printing, and tyres and is involved in the beginnings of oil development, in the Forties field and elsewhere.

    I had intended to raise a matter of concern to my constituency arising from an industrial dispute affecting the Timex works, which might have led to the loss of 6,000 jobs. A tense situation had arisen. I am glad to say, however, that there are signs of conciliation abroad in the dispute, and I hope that the matter will right itself naturally. I was encouraged to learn from the Gracious Speech of the Government’s intentions to facilitate conciliation industrially. I hope that the Secretary of State for Employment will bear in mind the situation in Dundee.

    As I remarked, Dundee has a sphere of the North Sea oil boom, but its participation so far has been small. Approximately 250 jobs have arisen from oil development. That is a small number out of those which have come from oil development around our coasts, and I want to dwell on that issue, albeit briefly, as it is a vast subject.

    In Scotland, we are much concerned with what has been happening in connection with the oilfields, perhaps more so than elsewhere in the United Kingdom because that development is taking place on our doorstep, and initially we recognised the importance of oil to a degree that several years ago the Department of Trade and Industry did not.

    Second, we are aware that in certain areas of Scotland there are bad effects from over-development. We are becoming aware of the need for conservation, to ensure that the oil industry is controlled so that we do not go from a boom to a bust situation. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) when he said that natural gas had not in itself led to any permanent improvement in the industrial situation in his area. It is manifest—there are examples of this elsewhere—that the mere discovery of oil in itself can leave an area exploited and without potential once the first flush of ​ development has taken place. We must all look out for that danger.

    In Scotland, and certainly in the Scottish National Party, we say that one must pay prime attention to the governmental revenues, which by 1980 are likely to be vast, to ensure that the returns from these capital resources—for oil is a capital resource—should be ploughed back into the industrial fabric of Scotland. We want to make sure that the industries we have are not those of the 19th century, or indeed, of the 20th century, but those that will expand in the 21st century.

    I have no hesitation in raising the question of oil. The House will hear a great deal about it from the Scottish National Party, because what is happening now is one of the most important events to hit Scotland over the last 200–300 years. If I required any further excuse to raise it, I could mention that I have recently been appointed my party’s parliamentary spokesman on this topic.

    What has worried me over the last few years is the state of unreadiness with which the United Kingdom has approached the development of the oilfields. It may be known to hon. Members that in 1965 the Norwegian Government began to prepare themselves for the onset of developments in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. They have taken in hand the development of Norwegian oil in ways which will be for the betterment of the Norwegian people.

    We in Scotland have found ourselves defenceless against the commercial and political interests. I need mention only that it is United Kingdom policy to speed up the extraction of oil in order to help the balance of payments, whereas Scotland as an oil-exporting country, just as Norway, would be more inclined to go for conservation so that the benefits were spread over a period not just of 25 years but of 100 years and subsequent generations were not cheated out of their birthright.

    If I have to say why Scotland needs primary benefit from development, I point to our lower wages and poorer housing. The opportunities in Scotland are poorer for children. One child in 10 in Scotland, according to a recent report, is bound to fail because of poor social and economic conditions. I believe the figure for the ​ south-east of England is one in 45. Unemployment too, has often been mentioned by Scots in this House.

    I shall briefly mention ways in which the Government could attend to Scottish interests. The votes in Scotland show that people in our country are very much concerned with what has been happening in relation to oil and they will be looking critically at the Government’s efforts to see how they will be affected.

    I suggest, first, to the Government that Scotland should expect to obtain the benefit of orders for equipment, services and use of labour in Scotland. They should be of Scottish origin except when Scotland cannot provide the goods or services concerned or where their provision from Scottish sources would not be reasonably competitive. This is something which the Norwegians have done, and I hope that the Government will follow their example. One may say that this is protectionism. But the United States requires that the supply vessels that operate off her shores should be manned by Americans and should also fly the American flag, whereas in the North Sea flags of convenience from Panama and elsewhere abound.

    Secondly, I hope that the Government will try to entice into Scotland specialist manufacturing processes connected with offshore oil, because the offshore drilling industry is in its infancy and if we enter the industry now there will be tremendous export markets available. This will require Government inducements and Government pressure. The Government may well be helped by the fact that the Scottish votes in the General Election have shown that people are sensitive to the possibility of exploitation and the oil interests may, therefore, wish to take out an insurance policy and try to give greater benefits to those who are likely to be affected.

    The third suggestion relates to the transfer of the petroleum department of the Department of Energy. There may be arguments for the transfer of the Department of Energy to Scotland, but the petroleum section should come immediately. The Hardman Report suggested that there should be a dispersal of Civil Service jobs from the centre. This may cause difficulties with existing posts. ​ But where a new Department is created there is a cast-iron case for dispersal of those jobs before they begin. I suggest that Scotland, which is now a centre of the offshore oil industry not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere, should be considered as the site for that office.

    The fourth recommendation is partly related to the Department of Energy. I could never understand, and many industrialists and members of trade unions in Scotland share my view, why the previous administration set up the Offshore Supplies Office in London, with a but-and-been office established in Glasgow set up several months later.

    The opportunities which will stem from the oil industry will arise in Scotland, and it makes sound sense that the relevant Government Departments should be located where the action is. I therefore ask the Government to consider transferring the Offshore Supplies Office to Scotland. They are not committed by the decision of the previous Government.

    I ask that the Government consider these suggestions I have raised in connection with the oil industry. In the Scottish National Party we have friendly feelings towards the people of England, and we want to make sure that, while we insist upon complete control of the oil industry, we take care of our friends in future years, but it must be borne in mind that the industrial pendulum—the power of the economy—has now swung irreversibly in the direction of Scotland through the discovery of oil. This should be some incentive to the Government to ensure that Scottish interests are not forgotten or ignored, as has happened so often before.

  • Hal Miller – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Hal Miller, the then Conservative MP for Bromsgrove and Redditch, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and so to make my maiden speech. It will concern the interests of my constituency of Bromsgrove and Redditch, which I am proud to be able to serve. The constituency has been very fortunate in its Members to date—Sir Michael Higgs and James Dance from the Conservative Party and, more recently, Terry Davis from the Labour Party. They established and developed a tradition of service which it will be my first concern to uphold.

    In my home we have a Lord Chancellor’s purse and a Black Rod, bequeathed me by my forebears, so I am conscious of the traditions of Parliament and one may imagine my pleasure at being here and my determination to uphold that parliamentary tradition, which is the only guarantee of the liberty so dear to the citizens of this country.

    My constituency is dependent on industry, largely the same industry, and dependent on it to the same extent, as that of my neighbour the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), who so ably moved the Loyal Address yesterday. Both his constituency and mine suffered from the previous Labour Government’s commitment to regional ​ development when they were in office in the matter of industrial development certificates and other incentives which resulted so frequently in the relocation of existing industry rather than the development of additional capacity. With a new town we are, of course, more than ordinarily exposed to the effects of Government policy in this respect, and I should welcome clarification of the Government’s intentions.

    Physical controls, although potentially serious, are only of equal importance to the financial régime, the proposals for which we have to await in the Budget, but I urge the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing their detailed proposals, to bear in mind the length of time between making an investment decision and bringing that investment into production.

    Nothing is more harmful to investment than uncertainty and constant changes in the ground rules. The one inhibits and the other vitiates investment. Confidence, about which the Secretary of State spoke this afternoon, can be based only on certainty of the Government’s intentions and on knowledge that the assumptions will hold good long enough to bring the investment into production.

    The industry in my constituency is, in the main, connected with the motor industry. It is central to the economy of the country, and this fact has made it a prey to Governments of both parties intent on managing the economy, often with disastrous results in terms of the employment and the wage packets of my constituents when the brakes are applied with too heavy a foot.

    It is a matter for regret that the Gracious Speech makes no reference to motorways. I had hoped for a commitment to re-examine the programme last put to the House in a Green Paper as long ago as 1969. The developments which have taken place since then have made such a re-examination urgent both as to the routes and as to the national priorities, the engineering standards adopted and the procedures for publishing specific proposals for public inquiries and for compensation.

    I have had occasion to write direct to the Secretary of State on the more detailed proposals—and here I pay tribute to the unflagging efforts of Terry Davis in this respect. But there are matters of general import that I wish to raise now.

    The first concerns the procedure which allows the publication of details of short stretches of motorway at one time, because once one section has been agreed after an inquiry it inevitably prejudices the remainder, although without a hearing. So it is that the M42 must prejudice the western orbital route in the vicinity of Hagley, although no detailed proposals have yet been published to which residents affected can yet object.

    The second concerns the need for some contribution towards the expenses of objectors at a public inquiry in retaining the experts and the advocates necessary to plead their cause and rebut the expertise of the Department. If an inquiry is necessary in the public interest, it would seem equitable that the public purse should bear the expenses of both parties once it is determined an inquiry is necessary. These costs have been aggravated by the incidence of value added tax.

    The M42 is planned to run through an area of green belt. I look in vain in the Gracious Speech for an indication of the Government’s intentions towards green belt land. We in Bromsgrove and Redditch do not wish to be engulfed in the West Midlands conurbation, and we look to the Secretary of State for speedy confirmation of interim green belt in north Worcestershire. Our fears in this regard have been sharpened by the recently announced decision of his predecessor regarding permission to build in the so-called “green wedges”.

    If there is a theme which links these remarks, it is that the people want to know, need to know and have a right to know what is happening.

  • John Tomlinson – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Tomlinson, the then Labour MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will excuse me if I do not follow him, but I am privileged to have the opportunity to make my first ​ speech in the House and wish to follow tradition by referring to my constituency.

    It is not merely the largest in the country; it is also at the centre of England. Many people in my constituency are too modest to say what they already know; namely, that the rest of England revolves around them. Meriden has been well served by its Members of Parliament. The late Chris Rowland served the House and the constituency well and is still affectionately remembered in the constituency by all who knew him for the work he did. My immediate predecessor, Mr. Keith Speed, was also renowned for his diligence in dealing with constituency matters, and this held him in high esteem throughout the constituency.

    My constituency has many facets to commend it. There is, for example, the new and extensive development outside Birmingham at Chelmsley Wood and Kingshurst, which, while magnificent, would be much enhanced if we were to get a swimming pool for which we have been fighting for many years. Many electors in my constituency work in the great conurbations surrounding Birmingham to the west and Coventry to the east. Between these two extremes we have a constituency which is tremendously diverse. It contains three coal mines—Baddesley, Daw Mill and Birch Coppice.

    Miners, and the rest of the community in my constituency, are pleased to note the speed with which the Government have managed to settle the mining dispute, which many of my constituents felt should never have taken place. My constituents are not only pleased that the dispute has been ended so speedily; they they are also pleased that, following the speedy cessation of the dispute, the rest of the country has managed to revert to normal working. My constituency is grateful for Government action which has so far been taken in this respect.

    In the centre of the constituency is Meriden village, where some of the world’s finest motor cycles are manufactured at the Triumph motor cycle works. I am pleased that we now have a Minister who is prepared to do something about the serious situation at the Triumph works—namely, the arbitrary attempt to close the factory. This has been resisted by employees who are in the process of forming a workers’ co-operative, which, it is hoped, will be established. I welcome the discussions on the co-operative development agency, and I look forward to sympathetic understanding from the Government regarding the problems of the workers at the motor cycle works. It would be a tragedy of enormous magnitude—not only in employment terms but also in terms of national resources which would be lost—if the works closed.

    Closure would be particularly tragic when it is borne in mind that most of the production at the works is for export. I look forward to Government support in the months ahead in ensuring that this great venture in industrial participation gets off the ground.

    My constituency is also concerned about the balance of payments problem. A number of hon. Members have spoken of the need to improve industrial productivity. I agree with this and with some of the measures which have been suggested to stimulate industrial productivity. I welcome the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act and the measures which will replace it and which will stimulate an atmosphere which will be more conducive to better industrial relations.

    The need to expand industrial productivity has been emphasised, but many people in my constituency are also concerned that drastic measures should be taken to promote import-saving industries. In my constituency many people are dependent on agriculture. Stimulation of an import-saving industry such as agriculture is equally as important as stimulation of industries which will lead to expansion of exports. Agriculture is a vital industry to my constituency, and the problems of agriculture, particularly the present plight of pig producers, have already been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by one of my constituents, Sir Henry Plumb, president of the National Farmers Union. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will find time to look at the problems of the industry.

    My constituents join with me in welcoming the Gracious Speech and the fact that it deals with the real problems which we have to face. Nearly half the people in my constituency live in rented accommodation. Thus, there has been great delight in Meriden over the speedy way the Government have tackled the Housing ​ Finance Act, which has placed unnecessary burdens on many people and led to unnecessary inflationary pressures. My constituents welcome the repeal of the Housing Finance Act, and they are pleased with the Government’s speedy action to freeze rents for the remainder of this year.

    Proposals in the Gracious Speech for improving pensions are welcome, as are many other measures.

    The Gracious Speech contains proposals which will deal with the interests of the whole community and considerably benefit the people I represent. On their behalf I welcome these proposals.

    I thank the House for its indulgence and for the way it has received me. I hope I shall have an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker’s eye on future occasions so as to address the House on, perhaps, more controversial issues of concern to my constituents.

  • Jeff Rooker – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Jeff Rooker, the then Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I hope that the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) will forgive me if I do not refer to his speech. I propose to follow the custom of new Members by referring to my constituency. I represent Perry Barr, which ​ is in Birmingham. It is the northern wedge of Birmingham, and it is the place where I was born and raised and went to school. I am doubly proud to have been elected to serve the electors of that constituency.

    There is very little industry in the constituency, and that is strange for such a large industrial city. Basically, it consists of housing, schools and a few shops. Except for half a dozen, most of the houses are post-1930. I suppose for some hon. Members that would be considered modern, notwithstanding that 50 per cent. of council houses still have outside sanitation—a state of affairs to be deplored in the age of Centre Point. I have promised my electors—and I intend to keep the promise, come what may—that I will not support public spending on grandiose schemes whilst outside sanitation exists.

    Also in the constituency—and this may surprise hon. Members—there is the Convent of the Little Sisters of the Assumption, which is 400 years old. They do invaluable social work amongst the underprivileged families in the area.

    There is also—not on the same site, I should add—a seminary for training Roman Catholic priests which is about 500 years old. These are located within the area of the Perry Barr constituency.

    Most of my constituents work in the thousand-and-one trades for which Birmingham is noted, but the majority are probably involved in the motor industry. I shall return to this matter later in the remarks I wish to make concerning the Gracious Speech.

    The Member I have replaced, Mr. Kinsey, worked hard on behalf of his constituents in Perry Barr and helped them to solve the problems that they encountered in the area. The fact that as a Member of this House he consistently voted against their best interests does not detract from the good work he did within the local community.

    Hon. Members may remember that just prior to the General Election Mr. Kinsey achieved some notice, along with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), concerning his remarks about the two-in-a-bath saga.

    Today we might refer to that as “unisex streaking”. I wondered at that time whether I. as a candidate of two and a half years’ standing, should comment on that matter. However, I decided that ​ what happens between a husband and wife in their own home ought not to be commented upon by any official or public person. Frankly, I thought it to be impertinent, and I hope that I will not fall into the trap into which the former Member for Perry Barr fell at that time.
    Labour candidates fought the election largely on the issues of rising prices and the level of inflation. It is remarkable that on the official notice of poll Mr. Kinsey described himself as a retail trader. I should have thought that he would run for cover from that title, but I nevertheless wish him well in returning to his former occupation of selling flowers to the electors and residents of a Birmingham suburb.

    The Gracious Speech refers to proposals on health and safety at work. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that many of the Government’s proposals had already been before the House and were included in the Queen’s Speech last November. I hope that is not so, because I do not believe we should support what the Conservative Government had in mind. The Conservative legislation was based almost completely on the report of the Robens Committee, published in July 1972. The main conclusion of that committee was that most industrial accidents at work are caused by the apathy of the workers. That is something else to blame on them. The accidents are their fault.

    It was also said that the prime responsibility for doing something about the problem lay with those who created the risks and worked with them. Yet we lived until 28th February in an employer-dominated society in which those who worked with the risks did not have the capacity to do anything about them. The committee said that there was also too much law on industrial safety at work and that it needed reducing. That of course is at variance with the theme of the legislation on industrial relations and wage restraint introduced by the Conservatives. Nevertheless, I admit that the Labour Government do not have clean hands over wage restraint legislation.

    The most frightening remark of that committee, which was taken to heart by the previous Government, was that it did not look upon the factory inspectorate ​ as a law enforcement agency. At the time I considered that to be a treasonable remark. I hope that my remarks will be seen to have an element of constructive criticism or comment in them about what I want our Bill to contain.

    We want action to ensure that there will not be 500 deaths a year from accidents in industry. Ten people will be killed this week at work, yet, according to the Robens Report, their deaths must be attributed to the apathy of the workers. We want action to reduce the 30 million to 40 million working days lost every year through accidents. I spent 15 years in industry as a time-serving toolmaker’s apprentice and I also served time on the other side of industry, some of it as a safety officer. I know from experience that attempts are made to circumvent the regulations and not to report accidents which take place.

    The only way to achieve progress in this respect is for those who work with the risks to have the statutory right to decide whether they will continue to work with them, and that means the safety officer should not be paid by the management but should be a worker who has the statutory right to investigate dangerous processes. When the question of compensation arises it means that we have failed because the accident will have happened and a man may have lost a life or part of a limb. Nevertheless, compensation is important. Our Bill must change the practice whereby serious breaches of the Factories Acts merely end up in a magistrates’ court with a £50 fine even when someone loses a hand or a foot. That sort of thing happens throughout industry, and it certainly happens in Perry Bar even though the constituency has little industry there. Such cases may be followed by about four or five years’ delay before compensation is paid through the courts when the plaintiff sues for negligence. The compensation is paid long after the time when it was badly needed.

    The Bill must ensure that the problems that people from my constituency came across, one of whom died as a result of an accident, are dealt with. There was a struggle for years to establish that there had been an accident even though it was not recorded. The affair was covered up at the time, but an industrial accident ​ happened. I want the Bill to solve problems, such as the one involving Mr. Arthur Faulks, who now has only one lung because of the repeated occasions he was told to work in conditions where asbestos dust was prevalent.

    I am opposed to the present rules governing industrial safety and welfare. New legislation is required, and I hope that we shall be able to give those who do the work the power over the process. Legislation planned by the previous Government did not provide for that, but I am hopeful that legislation proposed by the present Government will. If it does not, I shall not remain silent, neither will other hon. Members on the Government benches.

    I thank the House for the time it has given to me and for the silence with which it has listened to me. I realise that I may not have made a conventional maiden speech. I did not attempt to do so, for there is an element of controversy in most matters and I did not wish to waste the opportunity to address the House on matters of vital importance to the area I represent.

  • John Garrett – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Garrett, the then Labour MP for Norwich South, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    The constituency I have the honour to represent as a new Member covers the southern part of the city of Norwich, one of the country’s great regional capitals. I pay tribute at the outset to my predecessor, Dr. Tom Stuttaford, for the conscientious way in which he represented the interests of the people of Norwich, South.

    Norwich may be known to hon. Members as a city of priceless architecture, a heritage which in no small measure is due to the far-sighted policies of its city government, which has placed great emphasis upon the conservation of the fabric of the past while conscientiously planing the development of modern road networks for movement in the city. This same city government has a record second to none for the construction of public housing and for the development of other municipal services. Norwich is a thriving industrial centre with a wide range of ​ industrial and commercial activity. It, and its surrounding hinterland, does, however, suffer from markedly low wage rates, which, on average, are well below the wages in manufacturing industry in the rest of the country. This is due to the relative isolation of the city. Unkind people have unjustly suggested that the city is cut off from the rest of the country by British Rail. But the reason lies also in the structure of industry in the city and in historical factors.

    This problem leads me to comment upon an issue of public policy; namely, that the criteria by which regions qualify for Government assistance are too heavily weighted towards unemployment as a measure of need and too little towards low wages and an inadequate infrastructure of public transport and roads. I hope that the Government in formulating regional policy and criteria for assistance to regions, will in future broaden the definition of need to allow for these factors.

    I am pleased to see from the Gracious Speech that oil and gas from the Continental Shelf will be exploited in ways which confer the maximum benefit upon the community, particularly in regions in need of development.

    Yesterday some hon. Members opposite were frequently moved to exclaim about Scotland’s oil. I was tempted to join them with observations on Norfolk’s gas. The situation is that the discovery of natural gas off East Anglia has not led to industrial development based on that gas in Norfolk. That important industrial raw material has been piped through one of the lowest wage areas of the country to the Midlands and the South-East, areas which already have more than their fair share of industrial riches. I hope that the Gracious Speech foreshadows a policy which enables Norfolk to claim a share of high-wage, high-technology, energy-based industries.

    I was pleased to see that the Government will actively consider

    “measures to encourage the development and re-equipment of industry.”

    Post-war British industry has been characterised by inadequate investment in new plant and machinery. It has been characterised also by a low rate of industrial innovation, by which I mean the bringing of new products to market. It is ​ galling to observe the number of occasions on which an original British invention has been exploited by foreign industrialists, who are quicker to perceive the needs of the market place.

    My industrial experience leads me to the conclusion that we need innovative State enterprise. The Government propose to establish a National Enterprise Board as a vehicle for public ownership. I hope that one of its main objectives will be to create new industry in sectors in which private enterprise has failed or has lagged behind in the exploitation of opportunities.

    I have in mind the service industries for North Sea oil and gas, for example—a market which will be worth £500 million a year by the end of this decade, and a market in which the British share is today wholly inadequate.

    The world-wide demand for oil and gas equipment and services within a few years is estimated at £1,500 million a year. If we can get into this market now, the export opportunities will be prodigious.

    Similarly, I believe that State enterprise is needed to substitute home-produced goods for many of our imports, particularly in the electronic, office equipment and machinery sectors, large elements of which have an adverse balance of trade at the moment.

    We have seen from the previous Government that we are all interventionists now. I hope that intervention in industry from now on will bring much-needed industrial development to regions such as East Anglia, and will lead to the new industries which this country must create in order to survive.

    In industrial relations we have recently seen the failure of attempts to constrain labour negotiations by a legalistic framework. The truth is that industrial relations are human relations. They are about the interaction of management and labour in the attempt to find accommodations of sometimes conflicting, and sometimes mutual, interests. These accommodations can be found only by agreements freely and voluntarily arrived at as a result of bargaining, of give and take, of continual adjustment between management and labour.

    The Government’s rôle should be to provide a conciliation and arbitration service, which is always ready unobtrusively to help the parties to reach agreement. I trust that the reforms set out in the Gracious Speech will herald just such a rôle for the Government.

    Industry is ready for an advance towards industrial democracy. A new generation of workers is not inclined passively to accept what used to be called the rights of management. I hope that industrial democracy will advance by means of company supervisory boards on which directly elected workers will have half the membership and which will vet and consider policy issues which affect working people—acquisition policies, diversification policies, location policies, personnel policies, conditions of service and the other things which directly affect the lives of people.

    One of the most unfortunate aspects of industry which have been seen recently is the extent to which asset strippers could take productive enterprises and throw the workers out on the cobbles because the property values of the factory were greater than the value of the production from it.

    Many managers are now persuaded of the sense of the course of development that I advocate. Until people know that their interests are perceived, understood and cared for by top management, the suspicion and hostility which plague so many areas of industrial relations in this country will continue, to the detriment of our economy and to the fundamental detriment of our society.

  • Colin Phipps – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Colin Phipps, the then Labour MP for Dudley West, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) will forgive me if, on the occasion of my maiden speech, I do not comment on his excellent remarks.

    I understand that in a maiden speech it is customary to pay tribute to one’s predecessor and one’s constituents and to speak for not more than 10 minutes. Because of boundary redistribution I have two predecessors, and I hope that to do them justice the House will allow me a little more time.

    One of my predecessors is, happily, still a Member of the House. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards) part of whose old constituency of Bilston is now in my constituency of Dudley, West. It ​ will hardly be necessary for me to extol my hon. Friend’s virtues, as the House will have a continuing opportunity to observe them. However, I pay my personal tribute to him for the help he has already given me and the help he has promised to me for the future. Indeed, he has already gone so far as to pass to me a large file containing his most intractable constituency problems. I am extremely pleased that he is still a Member of this House.

    I am equally pleased that my other predecessor is no longer a Member—not because of any shortcomings on his part but because his absence is the necessary condition for my presence. Mr. Fergus Montgomery, the former Member for Brierley Hill, was, I understand, a well-liked and effective Member of this House, and on behalf of his former constituents I should like to wish him every future success, preferably in a Liberal seat.

    I am happy to give my unqualified approval to the wisdom and judgment of my constituents. Dudley, West, centred on the town of Brierley Hill, is famous for the manufacture of the finest cut crystal, steel, bricks and pork pies in Great Britain. It will be my continuing pleasure in the coming years to make this House more familiar with these products.
    My reason for wishing to speak at this early stage of the debate is that I am by profession an oil geologist and am therefore particularly concerned with energy matters. However, before addressing the House on the subject, I must declare my interest in the North Sea. I am a director of two companies engaged in exploration in the North Sea, a director of a company engaged in supplying services to drilling rigs in the North Sea, and a director of a consultant company advising several other companies engaged in exploration and other activities in the North Sea—all, I am glad to say, British.

    I must also declare an interest in the formation of a national hydrocarbons corporation. I was a member of the Labour Party’s study group which first proposed such a body in 1967, a proposal which was adopted by the Labour Party conference that same year. The previous Labour Government, I regret to say, did not implement it and I am disappointed that there is no specific mention of such a corporation in the Gracious Speech. However, I understand ​ that its formation is being considered and I should like to make some points in its favour.

    The formation of a national hydrocarbons corporation directly involved in the North Sea would provide us with a body of practical expertise at the national call. The staff of such a corporation would always be more expert than that of a Government Department, and it is essential that this country’s technical representatives should be as expert and as informed as those of the oil companies.

    Oil differs from other minerals such as coal in that the rate of extraction actually affects the ultimate recovery. I will not go into the technical reasons for this, but it means that the maximum ultimate recovery of oil is always different from the maximum profitable recovery of oil, and it is this difference which causes the greater part of the disagreements and arguments between oil companies and the Governments of producing countries. Having represented both sides in these arguments, I assure the House of the extreme importance of expert technical representation for the sake of the national interest.

    I believe that a direct national working interest in the North Sea is more acceptable to the industry and of greater benefit to this country than some purely fiscal interest. By vesting all future licences in such a corporation, whereby the oil companies become contractual partners with the corporation in all future explorations, we can ensure that we control which companies are invited to become involved, and in particular we can make sure that many of the one-man promotional outfits, never intending to drill but which have done so well out of trading their interests in the past two years, will be excluded.

    In saying that, I do not wish to make the point that small companies do not play an important rôle in the industry. They do. By taking some doubtful blocks and doing initial exploration on them before inviting a larger company to become involved, they often get exploration moving where it otherwise would not take place. However, many of the companies which received licences in the last two rounds never had any intention of spending any money at all. In the sense that they have bartered their interests to other companies, they ​ are robbing the national Exchequer. A national hydrocarbons corporation could also insist on a proper British participation, and thereby of Scottish and Welsh participation, in any licences.

    Such a corporation would also ensure that contractors—that is, companies contracted to it—used British goods and services and helped to develop an indigenous British industry, again with special reference to Scotland and Wales. The corporation could insist on such things as joint pipeline networks which would enable fields of marginal economics to be exploited. It could also control unitisation and secondary recovery projects and the offtake and depletion policies best for the national interest.

    Finally, such a corporation would be the obvious vehicle to promote British interests in the international oil industry. Existing licences, which may be subject to renegotiation, would also come under its control. As a piece of positive national enterprise, I believe that a national hydrocarbons corporation would yield great benefits to the community. I have pursued its creation since 1966 and I hope to be in this House this Session when it is born. I thank the House for its attention.