UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1978

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1978 Speech on the European Council in Copenhagen

    Margaret Thatcher – 1978 Speech on the European Council in Copenhagen

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 10 April 1978.

    The Prime Minister has made a very long statement and it would neither be possible nor desirable for me to comment on each and every point, especially as much of it will be the subject of debate later in the week. I shall confine myself, therefore, to my usual few points.

    ​ First, is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome any strong action by Governments which will bring terrorists to justice and which will prevent further violent acts of the kind which we are seeing far too often in Europe, that we welcome the setting of the date for the direct elections, and that we welcome the declaration of democracy which makes it clear that there is no room in Europe for any one-party State?

    Secondly, as there appears to have been a great deal of discussion on international currency and exchange rates and a good deal of confusion—indeed, contradiction—in the reports, it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could clear up some of that confusion and, in particular, if he could say whether there is any change in the Government’s policy of allowing exchange rates to float either against all currencies or specifically against those of our Community partners.

    Thirdly, will the Prime Minister say whether there has been any change in the very firm view taken at the Downing Street Summit—I am aware that it was of a different composition—against trade protection? He will remember that at the Downing Street Summit there was a communiqué which said that protection would foster unemployment, increase inflation and undermine the welfare of our peoples. Is that still his view about a country which exports as much as we do?

  • Jim Callaghan – 1978 Statement on the European Council in Copenhagen

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jim Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 10 April 1978.

    With permission, I should like to report to the House on the meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen which I attended at the end of last week with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

    The Council expressed to the people of Italy its distress at the cruel abduction of Signor Aldo Moro in Italy. There was agreement on the need for close co-operation among the Nine in countering terrorism and to reach conclusions on the proposals put forward by President Giscard with the aim of improving judicial co-operation among the member countries.

    The nine Foreign Ministers, meeting separately for part of the time, reviewed a number of current international problems, including the current position in the Middle East. The Council deplored all recent acts of violence in this area and the events in Southern Lebanon and expressed support for the new United Nations Force and for the integrity of the Lebanon. The Council emphasised that the momentum of the peace process in the Middle East should be maintained with a settlement based on Security Council Resolution 242 in all its parts and on all fronts.

    A statement was issued by the Council supporting efforts of the five members of the Security Council to bring about a peaceful solution in Namibia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave an account of recent developments in Rhodesia and the Council expressed their continuing support for a satisfactory solution based on the principles of the Anglo-American plan.

    On Community affairs, the Council agreed that the legislative procedures in the member States were sufficiently advanced to select the dates of 7th to 10th June 1979 for the first direct elections to the European Assembly. Each member State will choose its customary day of the week. For Britain that would be Thursday 7th June 1979. The Council adopted a declaration on democracy reaffirming the link between membership of the Community and the observance of democratic ​ principles, which is valid for both present and future member States.

    Following the “Amoco Cadiz” disaster on the French coast, the Council called on member States to adopt common attitudes in preventing pollution of the sea and in particular to co-ordinate action on compulsory shipping lanes and on effective control over vessels which do not meet the minimum standards for the operation of ships.

    It was agreed that a European foundation should be established, in Paris, to promote cultural and other contacts within the Community.

    The main focus of our discussions, however, was the unemployment of both human and material resources within the Community. The growth rate of the Community during 1977 was 1·9 per cent, and it was agreed that we should develop a common strategy designed to reverse this unsatisfactory situation. The strategy should cover five broad areas—economic and monetary affairs, employment, energy, trade and relations with the developing world—similar to those I recently suggested to President Carter, as areas in which the industrial world needs to take collective action. It is the Council’s view that agreement in these fields would be an important contribution to world economic recovery, higher economic growth and the creation of new jobs. The Council laid stress on the need to prevent inflation as part of the same objective.

    It was decided to aim for a Community growth rate of 4½ per cent, by the middle of 1979 and to define the margin of manoeuvre that would be open to member States as a result of co-ordinating their actions. The possibilities should be known when the Council next meets in Bremen in July. It was agreed to recommend a doubling of the capital of the European Investment Bank.

    An improvement in the general employment situation would be a key objective of such a common overall strategy. The Council agreed to examine whether work-sharing measures should have a supplementary part to play in alleviating the present grave employment problems.

    There was a discussion on the European aspects of what are called “industries in distress” and agreement to set up tripartite committees on a European ​ basis made up of Governments, employers and trade unions to overcome the serious problems of structural overcapacity and to restore the industries to world competitiveness.

    Work is being set in hand on these matters and on the imbalances of current account surpluses and deficits which lead to currency instability, as well as on measures to reduce demand and increase supplies of energy in the Community. It was also recognised that there is a need to reach a successful conclusion on the present multilateral trade negotiations and for an increase in capital flows to the developing countries.

    It is intended that conclusions on these matters should be reported to the next European Council in Bremen early in July. This meeting will be followed by an economic summit between the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom in Bonn on 16th and 17th July. It will thus be possible to present a European dimension to the wider summit. I am glad to say that the agreed statement announcing the wider summit also recognises the need for concerted and mutually supportive action in the main areas I have mentioned, and the participants agree to develop their policies so as to take account of this, both in preparing for the July meeting and in any action they take meanwhile. The Budget to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow will take this into account.

    This recognition of common purpose must now be reflected in the work that will take place and must lead to concrete action in the coming months and at the July summits. The discussions so far held with Heads of Government within and outside the Community have now to be made effective by policy measures which taken together will offer the best chance of bringing about a change in the direction of the world economy and an improvement in world confidence.

  • John Silkin – 1978 Statement on Spillers French Bakery Closures

    Below is the text of the statement made by John Silkin, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 10 April 1978.

    Spillers Limited announced last Friday that it had decided to withdraw from bread baking. We understand that over the last six years its losses on bread making have amounted to £28 million. Spillers has decided that the only way in which it can continue as a sound and viable group is to give up bread baking altogether. The company is selling 13 bakeries to Rank Hovis McDougall and Associated British Foods. This will ensure that the jobs of 5,100 employees are maintained. But the closure of the remaining 23 bakeries means the loss of 6,370 full-time and 1,620 part-time jobs.

    In order to complete this transfer the companies concerned needed to know whether a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be made. Immediately before Easter, therefore, Spillers approached the Government in strict confidence, through the Bank of England, on this question.

    After following the statutory procedures and in the light of the advice of the Office of Fair Trading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection decided, on the information before him, not to make such a reference. This decision took account of discussions between the Ministers concerned and the major baking companies in the course of which various points were clarified and a number of assurances given.

    In particular RHM and ABF have given assurances that they will keep open the bakeries transferred to them for at least a year. They have said that they are taking over all the Spillers bakeries for which they can see a profitable future. They also expect, subject to agreement with the unions on working procedures, to recruit the equivalent of over 2,000 additional employees at their existing ​ bakeries, including those in Liverpool, Glasgow and the North-East.

    The companies have said that the closures will not endanger bread supplies. ABF and RHM have stated that they do not expect to pre-notify a further price increase before late 1978.

    It is clearly a matter for serious concern that the measures now taken involve sudden large-scale redundancies in a single firm. The Government greatly regret that they have not had more notice of the closures. But, having regard to the substatial over-capacity in the baking industry and Spillers’ financial difficulties, Ministers concluded in the circumstances that the reorganisation proposed is probably the least unattractive of all the unattractive courses of action available.

  • Greville Janner – 1978 Speech on Currency Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greville Janner, the Labour MP for Leicester West, in the House of Commons on 7 April 1978.

    As the value of our currency declines, so inevitably does the value of the pound note and of each of the coins that represent that value in the hands, in the pockets and in the wallets of the ordinary user. I am happy to have this opportunity to ask the House to consider whether the time has now come for a complete review of our coins and our notes in the light of the decline in the value of money, in the light of inflation, and in the light of the weight of the coins that exist. In particular, I shall suggest that the time has arrived for the introduction of a £1 coin, for the introduction of a crown—that is, a 25p coin—and for a change in the type, size and, in particular, in the weight of the coins that are used at present.

    The value of currency has dropped in the last 20 years by four times. That is to say, £1 in 1957 would have bought as much as £4 today, 20 years later. Yet we still do not have a coin to represent the 1978 value of a 1957 pound. Indeed, the speed at which the value of the pound has dropped has increased, as we all know. Since decimalisation, when the last major changes in our currency took place, on 15th February 1971, there has been a drop in value of just under 60 per cent. Yet this drop is in no way reflected in the coins and in the notes that are in current use.

    It is clear, therefore, that a review is necessary and that steps ought reasonably to be taken so that people can have coins and notes that are convenient to handle, light in weight, last a reasonable time in the wallet or in the pocket, do not deteriorate so fast, and are easily recognisable by those who use them.

    I deal first with the question of the £1 coin. The Financial Times today carries a splendid cartoon suggesting that I should let nature take its course and the pound note will disappear anyway. If we allow it to go on long enough, I dare say that that will be so. In spite of the tremendous reduction in the inflation rate from nearly 30 per cent. about three ​ or four years ago to under 10 per cent. today, the pound still faces a change which is inevitable and which is continuing along with the world financial situation.

    What we now need is a coin which is convenient in use and which will last indefinitely. I am informed in answer to a Question that the average life of a £1 note today is 10 months, the life of a £5 note, which is used less, is 18 months, the life of a £10 note is two years and the life of a £20 note—which I do not think that some of us have ever seen—is two and a half years. A coin would be expected to have a life of at least 25 years. Therefore, even if the introduction of a coin were expensive at first, it would certainly be justified and much cheaper in the long run.

    Given that it would be possible to produce coins, the question then would be whether this introduction would mean the end of the pound note. Here I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in many other countries both coins and notes exist in the same denominations without causing any difficulty, so that those who prefer to use coins can handle coins and those who prefer to handle notes can handle notes. In France, for example, there are 50 franc and 10 franc notes and coins. As the value of the pound in France is about 9 francs, this means that the French have the equivalent of a £1 and a £5 coin, although the latter is not in common use.

    In West Germany they have 10 deutschemark and 5 deutschemark notes and coins. As the pound is equivalent to approximately 3·7 deutschemark, that means that Germany has coins worth about £1·30—an overlap in both places.

    In the United States there is a silver dollar and there is a dollar note. Those of us who have had the occasion to visit such centres of civilisation as Las Vegas have seen that the coins have a use in machinery which is never approached by notes. In this country there were some complaints, which perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with in his reply, when the size of the pound note went down about whether the new pound note would be usable in, for example, the machinery at service stations.

    In Australia there is an almost complete coverage of notes and coins from ​ 50 Australian dollars down to one Australian dollar, in both cases with notes and coins.

    When the 50p piece was introduced at the time of decimalisation, Lord Fisk said that he recognised that introducing a coin of even 50p—or 10s. as it had been in value—would seem rather strange at first. He pointed out that many countries have coins to the value of the same amount as 50p or more.

    There would appear to be no good reason in common sense or in finance or in economics why there should not be a £1 coin. I noted that in the other place earlier this week Baroness Birk indicated that the matter was under review.

    Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give an answer to a question which people are reasonably asking, which is why there is not to be a £1 coin very swiftly. Perhaps he will explain at the same time who makes the decision about whether there shall be. Is it him? Is it the Government? Is it the Bank of England? Who is it? Who decided that the £1 note should be reduced in size? Did he know about it before that decision was taken? If not, why not? Who is consulted? Was the House consulted? If not, why not? Decisions regarding our currency are of importance to our constituents and we are entitled to know what is to happen, what has happened, and why.

    I turn next to the crown coin. There is no coin available and in use between the 10p coin and the 50p coin. This is a gap about which shopkeepers complain. There would appear to be no good reason why this gap should not be plugged so that there can be an easier denomination in the giving of change. There is no need for the size to be too large.

    The White Paper issued at the time of decimalisation, specifically stated that the 50p coin
    “should be of such a shape and size that a 20p or 25p could be provided in the same tier later if the need should arise….

    The Board and the Royal Mint soon concluded that the 50p would have to be a fairly large coin so that it would be possible later to fit into the same tier a 20p or 25p in weight-value relationship”.

    Clearly, although the Jubilee crown was a splendid souvenir which is treasured by many of us and many of ​ our constituents, it is too bulky for everyday use. It is a souvenir and not a coin for use in the market place and there would appear to be no reason why we should not have a coin which is half the size or half the weight for a crown or, if the Government saw fit and the Bank of England thought it preferable to have a 20p piece, it would be one in the same relationship and one, I hope, which would be hexagonal—it should have many sides—unlike the ordinary round coins to which the 50p piece is the only exception.

    I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is no good reason in logic, economics or finance why there should not be a crown coin and why there should be this continued gap between the 10p and the 50p piece. Certainly the only answer that I have received has been that we do not want more coins because they are heavier. I repeat that if we were to have more coins, the notes could be continued, in so far as they exist, and that if there were coins of a higher denomination, fewer coins of the smaller denominations would need to be used.

    I turn to my next suggestion, which I hope has already been considered. It certainly should be if it has not. It is that our coins should be looked at in the light of the coinage of other countries to see whether there is any need for them to remain as bulky, and whether there really is any sensible reason why our coins should continue to drive holes through our pockets when they could be made from lighter and more convenient material, as they are in so many other countries.

    I suggest that there is very good reason for changing the shape of the coin. It is not only blind people who are concerned with the shape of the coinage. People who have to handle coins in conditions of poor light are also concerned, and we all like to know, from the feel of a coin in the pocket, what it is.

    There is no reason why we should remain, as we have done, so stagnant in our approach to coinage, and so old, fashioned. There is no reason why we should not have a radical change, even if, as was pointed out by Lord Fisk at the time of decimalisation, such a change is unpopular at first. It takes a while for people to get used to changes. I do not believe that this change would be ​ unpopular. I believe that it would be a very popular change to have lighter weight coinage of different shapes, which people could recognise readily and use readily. It would enable them, despite the lowering of the value of money, to have coins which are readily usable and changeable.

    It is quite plain that, even if these mild and, I suggest, modest and reasonable suggestions are to be taken into account, someone has to perform a general review. I presume that it would be my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Treasury. It may be that this would be together with the Bank of England but, whoever is involved, the review is now needed.

    From a reply given to me by my right hon. Friend earlier this year, I understand that there are periodical reviews and a balance between notes and coins, for example, but that no date has been fixed for the next periodic review. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that the time has come when the date ought to be fixed.

    Fortunately, the value of the coinage and the value of our notes is going down by “only” something under 10 per cent. per year, but the decrease in the value of the coinage means that there is an increase in their number. There is also an increase in the need for coins of convenient shape and size, an increase in the need for coins which cover the denominations in most common use—that certainly includes 25p—and an increase in the need for a coin which would reach the mighty level of the pound.

    I suggest that the time has come for us to have a silver pound, just as there is a silver American dollar. I hope that as the rate of inflation continues to decline the silver pound, which I would be very happy to hear the Minister announce, would retain its value for a very long time to come.

  • John Evans – 1978 Speech on Economic Problems in the North of England

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Evans, the then Labour MP for Newton, in the House of Commons on 7 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That this House believes that it is time a Minister with special responsibility for the North of England was appointed to the Cabinet.

    When I turned my thoughts to putting a motion on the Order Paper, my natural first thought, as a Member with a constituency partly in Merseyside, was to put down a motion about Merseyside and the appalling problem there, where thousands of redundancies have been declared in a number of industries in the past few weeks. They will add to the already appalling level of unemployment there But, as a Member with a constituency that is also partly in Greater Manchester and partly in Cheshire, I recognise only ​ too clearly that the problems of Merseyside cannot be settled in isolation from the rest of the North-West. The North-West has many appalling problems, particularly in the textile, boot and shoe, clothing and manufacturing sectors of industry.

    My second thought was to put down a motion in relation to the North-West of England, but, as someone who has lived and worked all his life on Tyneside and knows only too well that the appalling problems in the North-West of England also apply to the North-East of England, I realise that any solutions could be arrived at only on the basis of the North of England.

    I should like to define what I mean by “the North of England” in the motion. I would define it as those areas covered by the North-West Economic Planing Council, the Northern Economic Planning Council and the Humberside and Yorkshire Economic Planning Council. That is a fairly easily defined area where the problems thoughout the area stem from a common source.

    That area was once the heart of the British Empire—indeed, the heart of the world—with great industries turning out great wealth, to the benefit of all. But all those industries—steel, textile, shipbuilding, manufacturing and mining—are now in a state of considerable crisis. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in that region in the past 20 years.

    We have had debates in the House on the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, which I believe will be established in the not too distant future. Those of us from the North must see what the position will be once the Assemblies are set up. We must appreciate that they will be very powerful bodies. They will have a great deal of muscle and will have powerful secretariats with a great deal of money to spend, looking around the world for industry. I believe that the Assemblies will be listened to with a great deal of respect in Whitehall and in the Cabinet, whatever party is in power.

    The people of Scotland and Wales will still have representation in this House. They will still have their separate Question Times and their Grand Committees. More important, they will have in the Cabinet a Secretary of State for Wales ​ and a Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that that is the key to the issue, that they have a voice in the Cabinet, so that whenever issues are discussed the voices of Scotland and Wales are heard where it matters most.

    I believe that we have lost out in this respect. The voice and the feelings of the North of England have not been heard as loudly as they should have been in the Cabinet because we have not had one Minister representing our interests. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is on the Government Front Bench now and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is on the Opposition Front Bench. As there are only a few minutes left for debate, they cannot reply to me, but I shall be grateful for their written observations on that matter.

    The last local government reorganisation was truly disastrous in a wide variety of fields. Sooner or later we shall have to have a further round of local government reorganisation. My own constituency is a classic example. It is split across three county councils and four district councils, and there is even a new town in my constituency, which is part of the problems that have been heaped upon the people of that region.

    I believe that the next round of reorganisation, which will undoubtedly take place, will be the establishment of regional councils. That is essential for England. I believe that if we had those regional councils, which would take over all the functions of the metropolitan counties, the present county council structure being abolished, they would be able to establish their own development agencies.

    The Government would then be able to get rid of the present structure of regional grants and aids, many of which are manifestly unfair. Certainly they are grossly unfair to the North-West, where we are in competition with the other regions of Great Britain and of Europe. Only one small part of our region is covered by a special development area. The rest of the North-West, where we have such tremendous problems, enjoys only assisted area status. I believe that we shall never be able to solve

    [sitting suspended]

  • Nicholas Fairbairn – 1978 Speech on Being Excluded from HMS Caledonia

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicholas Fairbairn, the then Conservative MP for Kinross and West Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 6 April 1978.

    I am grateful to the Chair for being able to raise a matter which I consider raises important principles for the House and for the people of this country. Although it appears to be a personal issue, I have no personal hurt or feelings about it and it is not my intention to harass the Minister or his Department in any way. I hope that the Minister understands that. I am obliged to him for being present to reply to the debate. It raises grave matters for the House to which we need an answer which is not only truthful but which appears to be truthful and which can stand scrutiny.

    I shall give the facts of the matter. In May 1977 I was invited by the president of the mess of HMS “Caledonia” in Rosyth dockyard, which is near to my home, to address a mess dinner in July ​ of that year. On 23rd June I was informed that that dinner had been cancelled. I accepted that explanation but I wrote in the following terms to the president of the mess.

    “Being an advocate and an episcopalian and a Scot I have a naturally suspicious mind and I would like to be assured that there was a genuine reason for the cancellation of that dinner and that somewhere along the line I was not regarded as persona non grata personally or politically. The effect of a new date of course would confound my suspicions.”

    I was assured that that was true. Thereafter I discovered that the dinner had been held and that another person had been asked to speak at it. Therefore, I felt it right to raise the matter with the Minister.

    On 7th December 1977 I wrote a letter which inter alia included the following remarks:

    “This refusal caused gross embarrassment to my host and to the naval commanders of the base including C-in-C Northern Command and the Admiral in Scotland who were bidden by your Department to silence. My host was required to explain to me that dinner had been cancelled, which it had not. Will you please kindly explain to me for what reason I was held to be politically unacceptable to address wardroom dinner and also inform me on whose instructions the letter was written to the Captain informing me that the invitation to me was to be rescinded?”

    The letter is on file.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

    Outrageous.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    On 30th January I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State. What I am about to say is important. The Minister was ill. He had a most unfortunate illness, as we all have from time to time. For a period he was ill, but he graciously undertook his duties, and I pay tribute to that fact. I do not therefore wish to prey on the question of the delay.

    Nevertheless, on 30th January I received a detailed letter signed by the Minister which read inter alia:

    “As you know Ministers vet all invitations for Members of both Houses of Parliament to visit defence establishments for whatever purpose, and we thus have a good idea of those who have a genuine interest in defence matters. In particular I make it my personal concern to ensure that those Members invited to ‘social functions’ do indeed have a sustained interest in defence and have demonstrated such. My inquiries lead me to believe you have not paid any visits to HM ships or establishments, or to any Army or Royal Air Force establishment since your election to Parliament.

    Furthermore, I do not recall your ​ attendance at the two Navy debates I have fielded as Navy Minister, or for that matter any of the defence debates when I have been in attendance. Finally I arranged, with attendant publicity, for the Royal Navy presentation team to visit the House of Commons on 30th December 1977. As I had received your letter I made a particular point to check on your attendance. Unless you slipped in and out during the presentation while the room was in darkness I did not notice your presence among the 30 or 40 Members who were there. When I am confident that an hon. Member has demonstrated a genuine interest in defence matters I may feel much better disposed to encourage social visits.”

    Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

    Is that really true?

    Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

    What arrogance!

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Disgraceful.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    None of the allegations in that letter was accurate or true. But, forgiving that, what I find unacceptable is that that was not a genuine, although much researched and time consuming, answer. In other words, it was an utterly false and untrue explanation of why I had been excluded from that dinner.

    I had the courtesy of meeting the Minister and his superior, the Secretary of State. Following that I received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman himself, in which he said that

    “the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy had declined to issue an invitation as being outside the guidelines for visits by Members.”

    It went on:

    “He asks me to confirm in writing what he has already told you personally “—

    which the Minister had the courtesy to do—

    “that he completely withdraws the explanation offered in his letter and any suggestion of a lack of genuine interest in defence matters on your part, and that it was quite erroneous to suggest that such was the reason for not approving your visit.”

    In other words, the explanation given, which took six or seven weeks to contrive and which took eight paragraphs to express, was a deliberate falsehood. That is something that causes me concern—

    Mr. Gow

    And the country.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    As a result I wrote to the Prime Minister, and it was because of that that I had the meeting which resulted in a letter. My right hon. Friend ​ the Member for Amersham and Chesham (Sir I. Gilmour) wrote thereafter to the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has asked me to express his regret for his absence tonight owing to public duty abroad. I regret that my right hon. Friend is not present.

    But my right hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State, and the answer that we now have is still that I fell without a guideline on procedure. But if I fell without a guideline on procedure, I think that the House of Commons has a right to know upon what basis a Minister of the Crown is entitled to say that a Member of the House of Commons can be excluded from a visit to a defence establishment or any other establishment on the basis of his interest or his disinterest. If there are guidelines, we are entitled to know what they are. What was the circumstances in which I fell without them?

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Is my hon. and learned Friend a security risk?

    Mr. Fairbairn

    The Minister said in his letter that I was not a security risk.

    What are the guidelines which I or any other Member, or any Cabinet Minister or Shadow Cabinet Minister, fall without? Also, if so reasonable, so determinable, so explicable, so obvious and so agreed an explanation was the explanation, why did the Navy have to be told to tell a lie to me? If the Navy was not told to tell a lie to me, as the Navy did tell a lie to me, why did the Navy feel it to be its duty to tell a lie to me?

    I accept the Minister’s word in his letter that the Navy was not required to tell a lie to me. Indeed, I accept the Minister’s word as often as he changes it. But it is important to know why the duty was put upon the Navy to deny it, and why the Minister thought it necessary, if there was so innocent an explanation as guidelines, that he should contrive over seven weeks a letter in eight paragraphs which gave an explanation which he is required to withdraw as totally false.

    Others might say that it was a lie. I cannot say that it is a lie. All that I can say is that I cannot conceive an explanation as to why the Navy was required to give one explanation, the Minister gave another, and his superior has required him to withdraw it and give a third.

    The House of Commons is being told that Members of it, unlike members of the public, cannot visit defence establishments if they fall outside the guidelines on procedure.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Unpublished.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    Unpublished. Those are guidelines and procedures about which no one knows.

    Unless the Government wish to have the words “tyrant” and “truant”—

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    Dictator.

    Mr. Fairbairn

    —and “dictator”—put upon their coat tails tonight, they must give us an explanation, and a true explanation, not only as to why I was banned and was given false explanations but as to who else will be and has hitherto been banned.

    Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

    I think that we have here a case of great importance, because the Government are clearly in a complete and utter muddle over the guidelines that they may or may not have.

    I should like to give evidence to the House of a position that has gravely affected me. I received an invitation to attend a weekend reserve officers’ course to address the officers and was told that I would not be allowed to do this. I then took the matter further with the Secretary of State, who told me that had they offered to give me dinner I could have attended happily.

    It appears that, on the one hand, I would have been allowed to address those officers on a full stomach, and, on the other hand, if perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) had gone on an empty stomach, he might have been allowed to address the officers of HMS “Caledonia”.
    Therefore we have a great muddle here. The Government do not know which way they are going. We look to the Minister to clarify the situation tonight.

  • Les Huckfield – 1978 Speech on Viewdata and Teletext

    Below is the text of the speech made by Les Huckfield, the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    I thank the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) for raising this important subject tonight. The CEEFAX and ORACLE systems of the BBC and the IBA respectively, and the Viewdata system of the Post Office, mark important advances in communications. I commend the hon. Member for the constructive way in which he made his points. He quite rightly commended the organisations concerned and their staffs directly concerned with the projects. These are fine British achievements, which have given this country a world lead, and on behalf of the Government I offer my congratulations to all concerned. I shall certainly pass on to Sir William Barlow and his staff the hon. Gentleman’s very kind words of praise.

    The hon. Gentleman has gone into some of the differences between the two systems, but I know that he will understand that the BBC and the IBA come within the areas of responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I am sure will take very careful note of what he has said tonight, particularly in relation to the CEEFAX and ORACLE services. My own Department is, of course, responsible for the Post Office and for the well-being of British ​ manufacturing industry in general. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I tend to concentrate a little more on Viewdata and the set manufacturers, though I assure him that I shall attempt to cover the CEEFAX and the ORACLE aspects in my remarks as well.

    Let me make it clear that the setting up of the Viewdata service and its running come within the operational powers of the Post Office, as defined by the Post Office Act 1969. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is kept very closely informed of progress.

    As the hon. Gentleman says, the French authorities are developing their own teletext system, ANTIOPE, which, together with an associated system, is planned to provide services comparable with Viewdata and CEEFAX and ORACLE. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the technical specifications are rather different.

    The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the Post Office’s embarkation on a public trial for the Viewdata service in June this year. Some 1,500 subscribers in London, Birmingham and Norwich will take part. Over £8 million has already been invested by the Post Office in the project, and in February it announced that it had brought forward by one year the start of a full Viewdata service to the first quarter of 1979. It is allocating a further £18 million for the service in 1979 alone, which is, I think, a reflection of the confidence that the Post Office has in its system.

    By comparison, I understand that the French are not quite as advanced in setting up the commercial version of their ANTIOPE service.

    On the matter of exports, Viewdata has already achieved a major break-through by the sale of Viewdata know-how to the German Post Office. I believe that this should provide an important bridgehead into establishing Viewdata with foreign telecommunications administrations.

    There have also been a number of private demonstrations abroad, as well as seminars and public demonstrations at fairs and exhibitions, the latest of which have been in Zurich and Hong Kong. As a result, a number of countries, including European countries, have shown a great ​ deal of interest in purchasing the Viewdata software. In the United States, the New York offices of Insac Data Systems Limited, which is a subsidiary of the National Enterprise Board, already have an operational Viewdata terminal, which is linked to the computer centre in London, for demonstration purposes. The Post Office hopes that an agreement will be concluded in a few months’ time for Insac to market Viewdata in the United States of America, where there is already a considerable amount of interest being shown. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, therefore, that these opportunities are also holding great promise for British television set manufacturers and are very encouraging for them.

    On the question of international discussions, to which the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred, the question of standards for Viewdata-type and CEEFAX and ORACLE systems is already under discussion. The Post Office has informed me that it and the German Post Office are already in touch with the French authorities for ongoing discussions on the matter of standards to see what common areas exist between the Viewdata and ANTIOPE systems.

    On the multilateral level, the question of harmonising Viewdata-type services is being examined by a study group within the Conference of European PTT Administrations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of which the Post Office is an active member. The international telegraph and telephone consultative committee of the International Telecommunication Union is also turning its mind to this type of wired service, as well as the broadcast teletext services.

    In fact, the ITU’s international radio consultative committee, on which the Home Office, BBC, IBA and the set manufacturers are represented, has been discussing the broadcast teletext services for some time and it is now coming together with the international telegraph and telephone consultative committee to take the discussion further.

    Although that committee’s interest lies mainly in line transmission standards and alphabet standards, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office will take a very active part in the work concerned. Certainly we in the Government will keep a ​ close eye on the progress of such international discussions to ensure that should any Government-to-Government intervention appear helpful, such opportunities will be grasped firmly.

    Mr. Warren

    I should like an assurance that the Minister understands that at the moment there are two authorities speaking in these international conferences on behalf of the United Kingdom, whereas the French speak with one unified voice. But they are trying to make the running with a system which is later than ours and which has major problems which they are glossing over.

    Mr. Huckfield

    I am very much aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about the activities of the French, and we shall take it to heart.

    It would probably be helpful if I explained that the Post Office has made it clear that it will maintain the current Viewdata standards for the foreseeable future. At the same time it recognises that there may eventually be a need for a second generation of Viewdata service, at which time matters of compatability both for the television set manufacturers and the information providers will have to be considered.

    The hon. Member mentioned that there was some concern among the manufacturers that there should be closer co-operation among the various parties concerned on the line to take in international discussions. The Post Office assures me that it is fully seized of the need for very close co-ordination on this. It points out that, through the Viewdata liaison group, which comprises representatives of the Post Office, set manufacturers and information providers, the British Radio Equipment Manufacturers Association study groups, which include Post Office, BBC and IBA officials as well as the set manufacturers and its bilateral discussions with the BBC and IBA, it strives to present the most convincing and co-ordinated case in the various international discussions.

    The Home Office, which also takes part in international discussion on this, keeps closely in touch with the British parties involved. It does all it can to promote the British system vigorously in the international forums to which it is a party.

    As for the Government’s attitude, the fact that the Post Office is prepared to ​ commit funds now to a public Viewdata service, and bring forward the start of the service by one year, demonstrates the Post Office’s confidence in Viewdata and in the ability of all concerned to market it effectively. The Post Office is not in need of, and has not asked for, financial support from the Government to run the Viewdata programme; but my officials are in discussion with it to see whether there are any ways in which the Government can help.

    I noted what the hon. Member said about the industry’s desire to improve its promotional activity for Viewdata in Europe. I ask that representatives of the industry—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has contacts with it—make contact with my officials in the Department through the normal channels so that we may consider how the Government might lend support. I should perhaps mention that, through the micro-electronic support scheme, my Department is providing financial support totalling about £300,000 to two British companies involved in the manufacture of semiconductors to assist them in the development, production and marketing of custom-designed integrated circuits for Viewdata and broadcast Teletext. So there is some activity in that area. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to use his contacts with the representatives of the industry to ensure that we have more.

    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has authorised the broadcasting authorities to continue the development of their broadcast Teletext services. My right hon. Friend, while recognising that the development of Teletext raises a number of other important issues—particularly the implications for other communications media, particularly the newspaper industry—has made it very clear to the manufacturers that in his view the Teletext services are here to stay and has expressed his hope that that indication of the Government’s attitude will encourage the industry to provide the necessary equipments at a price which will bring them within the reach of the public at large. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if we are to get this system accepted widely in public, we have to concentrate particularly on bringing down the cost of the receiving sets.

    I should like to deal with two points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the first of which was the idea that the Government should demonstrate their support of the Viewdata service by placing substantial orders for receivers for their own use. The Post Office and the set manufacturers are already in touch with those responsible for the procurement of communications equipment for central Government, and introducing them to the potentialities of Viewdata in an office environment. Clearly, the Government’s own procurement decisions must be guided primarily by efficiency and economy in carrying out their functions, but I am sure that Viewdata is being evaluated with a sympathetic awareness of its national importance. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the right quarters.

    The hon. Gentleman’s other point concerned doubts raised recently about the maintenance of standards by advertisers using Viewdata. The Post Office is conscious of this problem and is discussing with the Advertising Standards Authority ways in which it can be tackled. The Post Office has adopted a policy under which editorial control rests firmly with the information providers, and matters of advertising standards have to be considered against this background.
    Finally, I once more thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what I think is a very significant British achievement. He sought the Government’s endorsement. I have tried to give him the Government’s endorsement tonight. I gladly, willingly and joyfully give it to him. I take this opportunity to reassure all concerned that it is the Government’s view that the standards presently being used for the Viewdata, CEEFAX and ORACLE services are effective and well proven. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government give their full backing and encouragement to the promotion, within Europe and elsewhere, of the international acceptance of these British standards.

    We have a great British achievement. We can be proud of that achievement. We want to extend that achievement elsewhere.

  • Kenneth Warren – 1978 Speech on Viewdata and Teletext

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kenneth Warren, the then Conservative MP for Hastings, in the House of Commons on 4 April 1978.

    Tonight I should like to raise the subject of Government support for the Viewdata and Teletext projects. These are means of transmitting information by both television and telephone to the public, industry and the community. They are brilliant British inventions. I think that they rank with the inventions of the jet ​ engine and radar in this country and that they are superb examples of British technical genius in action. Of particular importance is that they are two years in advance of any foreign rival. They are now on test and are not only proving that they work but that with good will they will meet the great expectations of the engineers who have developed them.

    I have nothing but praise for the way in which a dozen British companies, including the Post Office, have worked together in harmony but quietly in developing these new communications systems. More is the pity that in the quietness of the House we shall be told a story of British achievement, bearing in mind that the House is so often filled to hear the story of a British industrial disaster. Perhaps it is a reflection on all of us that we have become too used to failure and are not used to success when we see it.

    Our need tonight is to talk of the way in which we can bring this project, which is on the threshold of success, to the reality which I am sure both sides of the House want to see.

    I particularly praise the inventor of the system, Mr. Sam Fedida, who was once in the Post Office, and also the entrepreneurial style of Sir William Barlow and Dr. Alex Reid, who in the Post Office have shown a vigour, enthusiasm and entreprenuerial style which has been too long invisible in the Post Office. Praise also goes to those who worked on CEEFAX and ORACLE in the IBA and the BBC, who in parallel are leading the world—and my superlatives are carefully gauged—in this “first” in information technology. As a technologist myself, from what I have seen to date I believe that we have here a brilliant system, which will be a winner.

    The problem to which I wish to address myself tonight is the role that should now be played by the Government to ensure that the systems developed to date achieve the success that they deserve. For too long this country has failed to harvest the fruits of its own technology. For too long we have suffered industrial policies which have subsidised failure rather than stimulated success.

    The beauties of Viewdata and Teletext are that they are simple and will help ​ all the people of this country, and I hope, the world to gain a new freedom of access to information, not only across their own nations but across the frontiers of the world. They can be signal contributions to understanding between peoples.

    The clever parts of Viewdata and Teletext are translations of the concepts that started off as thoughts, drawings and views in the minds of people which now have been translated into systems that are proving that they are real and reliable. They are—I hope that the Government will recognise this—the first recognition in this country that a world information revolution is upon us. They are both systems which are built by venture capital from private industry and from the Post Office. Ranges of work have been done by companies such as Mullard, GEC, ITT, Rank, Decca—a dozen companies which make up the forefront of British communications technology.

    I have no doubt that the Minister will dispute my view, but I must say that I am delighted that the heavy hand of Whitehall has not been on the motive power of the project. On the other hand, I will be the first to say that if any Government are needed in an industrial project their presence in specific areas where help is required needs to be timely and of sufficient strength to complete the job properly.

    I should like to propose certain ways in which the Government could and should now help. The first is to endorse the systems as viable ways in which information can be conveyed between people. This may sound an unusual proposal to put before a House or to a Government—that all they have to do is to shout “Hurrah”—but this is such a wonderful invention that an endorsement by a British Government would be tremendous, timely and completely fair and reasonable.

    Secondly, I believe that the Government should give leadership in establishing that the viable and reasonable international standards for all these systems can be achieved.

    Thirdly, I ask that the Government should recognise that these systems are means of improving the process of government at all levels of government in the United Kingdom, whether it be at ​ national, county or district level, or within the national corporations of the State.

    To enlarge briefly on each of these proposals, taking endorsement first, a public expression by the Government of good will towards the project would not only be a spur to those who have quietly given so much of their time and their effort but also would be a tremendous help, I understand, to export sales projects. Be fore I came to the House, I knew what it was like to try to sell electronic goods in a very competitive market in the United States and the difference it makes or does not make to have the support of a British Government. I did not have it and it was like going up the north wall of the Eiger. Why not give these people the chance of a smoother ride round the softer side?

    I understand that the Post Office export division is all ready to go. I think that it should be assisted.

    We must also, I hope, look to the Government to ensure that any necessary legislation—this needs to be examined—is on line on time.

    On the question of leadership, to put it bluntly the French came in two years after we had started, and now, as is too often the case with our French allies, they are unwisely, from a technical viewpoint—I do not think it is my place in the House tonight to give way any technical secrets to which I might have become privy—trying to force through international specifications in favour of their equipment without the authority of technical backing which they should have.

    The Government could give leadership and I believe should give leadership in the relevant international authorities such as the Conference of European Posts and Telecommunications to make our systems and their systems acceptable rather than to find a situation where the French are trying to make our system unacceptable and theirs acceptable. We must speak through the Government with one authority for telecommunications and broadcasting at the debating tables where these international standards are agreed.

    Thirdly, I think that the Government should explore immediately, in collaboration perhaps with the central computer authority of the Civil Service Department which I recognise is another Department ​ from that of the Minister who is kindly replying to the debate tonight, the use of this breakthrough in information processes to improve the process of government. I have absolutely no doubt that the Viewdata and Teletext could bring to the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Department of Trade, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Minister’s own Department, new ways in which information could be gathered and exchanged.

    I hope that it would help the market surveys of the Department’s own requirement boards, which, I was told in a parliamentary reply, are unable to carry out their own surveys through a lack of expertise. I hope it would help the Foreign Office in the United Nations debate on direct satellite broadcasting, because these systems provide a means of supporting the British contention that we can supply world-wide freedom of access to information across frontiers.

    However, the Luddites are at work, and it is not unusual with new technologies to find people speaking sourly of something that looks like progress. I understand that the National Union of Journalists is already in dispute over one of the systems about who should get the jobs involved. But this is a new project which offers more than enough jobs for everyone, and everyone should welcome the chance of many more jobs. I hope that all the unions will look upon this development as an opportunity for new employment.

    I understand that the Advertising Standards Association feels that someone should censor what is available. The deputy director of that authority believes that Viewdata could become

    “a haven for all sorts of crooks and misleading advertisers who could not find a home in the existing media”.

    That Luddite attitude must be dismissed rapidly, so that it does not present an obstacle to what should be a great British venture. To achieve that I should be happy to give Mrs. Whitehouse the chance of acting as a temporary censor.

    In this century we have seen two great revolutions in communications. The first was that of the Wright brothers, who opened the door to Concorde, by which ​ the world can be spanned in a day. The second has been the revolution in communications by which we have literally moved from smoke signals to Viewdata and Teletext. We have changed communications so that instead of people having to travel to find facts they simply use television and the telephone. It would not be going too far to say that here for the first time in 20 or 25 years since the world first saw the computer we can look to a new world of communications which is dawning before us.

    The systems are a world of enterprise for industry. New jobs will replace old and more jobs will be waiting. We are only one year away from the systems being available in the High Streets of Britain, yet their names have never before been mentioned in Parliament. We now need a combined effort by industry and Government to reach out for the international success that these systems truly deserve, and I look forward to the Government tonight meeting me in that request.

  • John Stanley – 1978 Speech on Snatched Children

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Stanley, the then Conservative MP for Tonbridge and Malling, in the House of Commons on 23 March 1978.

    I am glad to have the opportunity in the final debate before the recess to raise the subject of the problem of tracing snatched children. I acknowledge the very important help that I have had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) in understanding the legal implications of the present situation. I am referring not to a child who is snatched by a passer-by but to the more complex and problematical matter of a child who is snatched by one parent from the other. The most difficult aspect is when the snatch takes place before divorce proceedings are finalised and there is no clear determination of arrangements for custody or access.

    I refer to a particularly distressing and heart-rending case that has occurred in my constituency—that of four-year old Mathew Allingham. Last summer his parents were in the process of getting a divorce. The divorce negotiations were proceeding perfectly amicably. Custody had been agreed in principle—Mathew was to go to Mrs. Allingham who would have custody, and access rights for Mr. Allingham had been agreed. Maintenance had also been agreed, as had the division of the proceeds of the matrimonial home.

    In June last year before the divorce arrangements had been completely finalised, Mr. Allingham requested to be allowed to take Mathew away for a week’s holiday. Mrs. Allingham agreed, ​ and there were no grounds whatever up to that point for suspicion on her part. She went away at the same time and when she came back she found a letter from her husband which read:

    “I have taken Mathew on an extended holiday. Do not worry. You know that I will look after him.”

    That was nine months ago. Despite the most exhaustive inquiries by the Kent police and others, and most rigorous, sustained and valiant efforts by Mrs. Allingham’s solicitor, Mr. Richard Dresner, whose contribution I cannot praise too highly, Mathew still has not been found. Both he and his father have disappeared without trace.

    This case has highlighted three major deficiencies in the arrangements for protecting what we all consider to be the fundamental rights of a child to preserve access to each of his or her parents. The first deficiency is the absence of mutual enforcement provisions, between this country and others, on wardship and custody orders. This is particularly relevant in this case. Mathew was made an interim ward of court almost immediately after the snatch occurred, but the wardship order was approved by an English court and was therefore only legally valid in England and Wales. It had no legal validity in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, let alone any Commonwealth countries, the United States or the EEC countries.

    The present situation is that if one parent snatches a child away from the other parent and is able to get that child out of England or Wales, he or she is reasonably certain of avoiding the English wardship order. We already have mutual enforcement provisions on maintenance orders between this country and others. It is high time that we extended that principle to wardship and custody orders.

    The absence of such arrangements at present are relevant to this sad and depressing case because Mr. Allingham has a brother in Canada and it may well be that he has taken Mathew there. The absence of any mutual enforcement provisions in regard to Mathew’s wardship order means that if he is traced and found in Canada it will be necessary for Mrs. Allingham to institute legal proceedings in a Canadian court to secure the return of her son to this country.

    I come to the second major deficiency in the system. I refer to the absence of any form of legal aid in legal proceedings overseas. I said that if Mathew were found overseas, perhaps in Canada, it would in theory be open to Mrs. Allingham to institute proceedings in a Canadian court for his return to the United Kingdom. But that is only a theoretical option open to her. She is in receipt of legal aid, but because under the rules such aid is not available to pursue cases overseas, she would have no means financially by which she could initiate an action in a Canadian court for the recovery of her son.

    Mrs. Allingham at present has the cards stacked against her. They are certainly stacked against Mathew’s chances of being reunited with his mother. Mrs. Ailingham’s son has been snatched and he might successfully be traced, possibly later this year or at some time in the future, in Canada. But if the present situation endures, Mrs. Allingham will find that her English wardship order has no legal force in Canada.

    Mrs. Allingham will find that the fact that she is unable to obtain legal aid for an action overseas will leave her with no means of instituting proceedings in a Canadian court. She is left with one option—a highly disagreeable and distasteful one and one which is emotionally traumatic for her, and even more so for the child. The option lies in trying to arrange, by stealth and subterfuge, a snatch-back or counter-snatch. Because of the inadequacy of the present arrangements, Mrs. Allingham’s solicitor has advised her that that would be the course to be followed if Mathew is identified overseas.
    I suggest that in the latter half of the twentieth century in a civilised country it is morally indefensible that we should put a mother or father in a position whereby, to secure the recovery of a child, he or she is unable to use the procedures in court but is forced to engage in a snatch-back.

    I suggest that, although I fully recognise that there are major problems to extend legal aid generally to matters overseas, in these circumstances the human considerations are so extenuated and fundamental that a special fund should be created to enable those parents who wish to have financial help to carry out pro- ​ ceedings in courts overseas for the recovery of their children who are subject to wardship or custody arrangements in the United Kingdom.

    Finally, there is a third deficiency, and that is the question of the tracing of snatched children. As I have discovered when examining all the ramifications of this case, it is surprisingly easy in Britain to disappear. One can change one’s name very easily. We have no system of identity cards, and Government Departments strictly enforce the principle of the confidentiality of personal information that is given to them. I in no way wish to abandon any of those practices. I believe that it is right and reasonable in a free society that if people want to embark on a new life, for whatever reason, they should be able, if they wish, to change their names.

    I certainly oppose the introduction of an identity card system and I attach the greatest importance to maintaining the principle of the privacy of personal information given to Government Departments. However, a case such as the one to which I am referring means that we need again to consider whether there are ways in which we can do more to protect the rights of snatched children and retain access for the parents from whom they have been snatched.

    I should like the Minister to look at three courses of action that might help the tracing process in this country. Will she have consultations within her Department to satisfy herself that the powers available to the police are adequate and give them all reasonable prospects of identifying and tracing snatched children? I fully appreciate that the Allingham case is not a criminal matter but a civil matter and that therefore assistance given by police forces is on an ex gratia basis rather than in fulfilment of their legal obligations.

    Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see whether it might be possible to do more through local education authorities to establish whether a snatched child is continuing to go to school in another area, perhaps under a different name? If Mathew is still in this country, he will shortly be of the age to start school, and this is another avenue which should be explored.

    I should also be grateful if the Minister would consult the Secretary of State for ​ Social Services, because the Department of Health and Social Security has access to the names and addresses of people receiving benefits and paying national insurance contributions. I understand that the Department regards the privacy of information given to it as a fundamentally important principle, but that it makes ex-exceptions when children have been snatched. I was glad to receive a letter from the Under-Secretary at the Department on 25th November. He said:

    “I can assure you, however, that it is the Department’s policy to help parents, guardians, courts or the police when they ask for the address of a missing child. Local social security offices have instructions that for this purpose they may make an exception to the normal rules of confidentiality and may provide the address of a child missing from home to the police or to a person known to be the child’s parent or guardian.”

    However, although that may be the official ministerial view, the exceptions on confidentiality may not have percolated through to local offices of the Department. Mrs. Allingham received a letter on 16th March from the North Fylde office of the Department. She had been making inquiries about a possible new address for her husband in this country. Mr. G. B. Duffy replied to her:

    “I must however, tell you that if then a later address was held in the Departments records we might not be able to let you have the address, such information being regarded by the Department as confidential. However while your son Mathew is the subject of wardship proceedings we would inform Tunbridge Wells County Court of the address at their request.”

    I am unhappy about the phrase “at their request”. The onus should be on the Department to make details available to the court as soon as it has any new information about the whereabouts of Mr. Allingham. The onus should not be on the court to make continuing applications to the Department. I should be grateful if the Minister would look into that.
    The case of Mathew Allingham highlights some glaring deficiencies in our arrangements for tracing snatched children. There are deficiencies certainly if a child is snatched and taken overseas, and possibly there are some deficiencies, too, in the tracing process in Britain. I believe that we owe it to every child to protect its right of access to its parents. I hope that the Government will accept that we shall be failing in our responsibility ​ towards children who are snatched in future if we leave the present situation unchanged.

  • Eric Varley – 1978 Statement on the British Steel Corporation

    Below is the text of the statement made by Eric Varley, the Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 22 March 1978.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the British Steel Corporation.

    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 28th February, the Government have been conducting a study in depth of the medium and longer-term position of the British Steel Corporation. There has recently been much public concentration on the Corporation’s likely losses in 1977–78. As I have told the House, these losses result from the worst crisis in the world steel industry for more than 40 years and one ​ in which the BSC’s overseas competitors are suffering in common with the Corporation.

    Our review has now been completed. Close consultations have taken place with the Corporation and the TUC steel committee. We have also taken account of the reports of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The Government’s conclusions are set out in a White Paper which is being published today. A separate White Paper will be published soon giving the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s recommendations.

    A modern steel industry is vital to an industrial nation. The Government will therefore ensure that a substantial bulk steel-making capacity is available in this country. The BSC plays a key role in supplying our manufacturing industries with the major part of their steel requirements. That must continue.

    Our examination has shown that the present world surplus of steel will last for many years and that the sales opportunities for BSC, both at home and overseas, on which the ten-year development strategy of February 1973 was based, are no longer realistic even on the most optimistic assumptions. In present market conditions, the Corporation has substantial over-capacity. In the next few years, considerable additional capacity will become available from large modernisation and expansion schemes already close to completion. A sufficient margin is essential to supply home and export needs when the world economy moves out of recession, and to provide for the unforeseen eventualities which have persistently invalidated previous forecasts. But neither the Corporation nor the country can afford the cost of the mounting overcapacity that would result from unchanged policies.

    Accordingly, the BSC has proposed, and the Government have agreed, the following policies. First, modernisation and expansion projects already approaching completion must be finished—for example, Redcar II B and Ravenscraig III. Secondly, substantial investment to improve product quality and so ensure competitiveness in the 1980s must continue. Subject to the conditions in the White Paper, the Corporation hopes to make a start on the installation of continuous casting facilities at Port Talbot in 1978–79.

    Very substantial improvements in productivity are also needed if the Corporation is to become viable. The trade unions and local workers’ representatives have a major role to play in this. The TUC steel committee has made clear its commitment to achieving this improvement. For their part, the Government are determined to give full, sustained and public support to steps to achieve improved productivity in BSC and will continue to promote this with both the BSC management and the TUC steel committee.

    Only by a common effort can we attain an internationally competitive British Steel Corporation that supplies the steel our manufacturing industries need, a Corporation that provides a secure livelihood for those employed in it while making a proper return on the resources invested by the taxpayer—the efficient, competitive and profitable British steeel industry that we need and are determined to achieve.