UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1988

  • David Shaw – 1988 Speech on Strike of Seamen

    David Shaw – 1988 Speech on Strike of Seamen

    The speech made by David Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 30 March 1988.

    As I understand it, the new clause is about whether it is safe to have an industrial dispute on board ship. The seamen to whom I have spoken believe that it is safe and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will say whether the Government believe that that is the case. It is noteworthy that this new clause is amending an Act that has been in existence under both Conservative and Labour Governments.

    I believe that the Floor of the House is the wrong place to raise an industrial dispute between a company and—

    Mr. Robert Hughes Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said at the beginning of his speech about it being safe to have an industrial dispute on board ship? As the law stood and as our new clause has made clear, an industrial dispute can take place only when the vessel is safely moored at a berth.

    Mr. Shaw I accept that, but the key issue is not whether it is safe for the men and for the officers, but for any passengers who may or may not be on board or anyone in the port area involved with that ship. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment upon that. I believe that that is the important question and I have no doubt that the public share my concern.

    I do not believe that the Floor of the House is the right place to raise an industrial dispute that has severely affected my constituency in the past three months. I believe that such a course of action could inflame the dispute and make matters worse rather than improve the situation. When the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the industrial dispute, I trust that he was not seeking to make matters worse because that would be the greatest tragedy of the dispute.

    The seamen have put a strong case to me with regard to safety. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did not say much about safety. I believe that there are important issues concerning the safety of the crew, passengers and all those involved in putting ships to sea.

    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—

    Mr. Shaw I did not seek to intervene in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I should like to continue.

    I fervently hope that an agreement is reached in the dispute. I have no vested interest in an agreement not being reached, unlike some other hon. Members. My interest in representing my constituency is that such an agreement should be reached as soon as possible and that it will not only be of benefit to the seamen and to officers, but of benefit to the public, the passengers and the company. Surely that must be good for everyone.

    Such an agreement must be safe for the seamen and for the passengers. It must also be fair. A number of seamen have said that an agreement with the officers may be unfair in relation to their agreement. Any agreement reached must be fair to the seamen and to the officers—both agreements should stand side by side.

    During the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North I was extremely upset. He said that he wanted to be fair to the company, but I do not believe that anything he said was fair to the company. I hold no brief for the company, but I hold a brief for the constituency of Dover.

    Dr. Godman Declare your interest.

    Mr. Shaw I have only a constituency interest.

    I have a brief that requires everyone to be given a fair hearing, so that it is in the interests of the seamen to go to sea and of the company to run the ships. If either side is given an unfair advantage over the other, the other will withdraw from the negotiations, which is not satisfactory.

    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North gave profit figures of more than £100 million. He should look at the company results of Townsend Thoresen and Sealink. The turnover of each of those companies is only slightly more than £100 million, but their profits are considerably less. In the meetings that I have had with seamen they have not suggested that profits were so high.

    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North talked about the problems of the Channel tunnel being deferred until 1993. The Channel tunnel company has just raised £5 billion. The company and the seamen must be able to compete in 1993 against a project for which I hold no brief, which I do not like and which I have been against since 1973. Many Opposition Members voted for the Channel tunnel, which was appalling enough. Not only will it come into being in 1993 but there is a real risk that duty-free sales will be lost. We in Dover must face these facts.

    It is no good saying that we can wait until 1 January 1990, or until 1 July. In Dover, the local authority, the shipping companies and the seamen have to plan today for the future. We cannot delay.

    Without balanced argument and discussion on both sides, the company will be forced into a political debate, rather than a discussion based on common sense. People should have the opportunity to get together; all parties in Dover need to get together. The company needs to be able to survive and trade successfully and the seamen and officers should be able to work in reasonable conditions and reasonable safety. Speeches that bash any side in the dispute will get us nowhere.

  • David Shaw – 1988 Speech on the Budget

    David Shaw – 1988 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by David Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 17 March 1988.

    I welcome the Budget because throughout the 1970s—the start of my working career—I witnessed an economy which went from stop-start to start-stop. The 1970s began with economic growth, but ended in decline. Towards the end of the 1970s, world opinion of us was at an all-time low. Far worse than that, however, was the attitude of the Labour Government towards the Health Service in 1976. The National Health Service suffered badly under Labour, but last November my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that £1.1 billion more would be put into it next year.

    Many things are wrong with the National Health Service. There are no satisfactory performance indicators by which to monitor its efficiency. Numbers of administration staff are still rising; on figures that I have seen, it appears that there are more administrators in the National Health Service than in the health service of the United States. I welcome the Government’s review, therefore. The Government’s approach has to do with value for money, not blank cheques.

    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave us all good news about the economy in his Budget speech. He said, among other things, that manufacturing exports were up by 8.5 per cent. and that unit labour costs hardly rose last year, which shows that there is more efficiency and success in the economy.

    Mr. Battle rose—

    Mr. Shaw I shall not give way. There are others wishing to speak.

    The figures that were announced today should no longer be known as the unemployment figures but as the employment and job vacancy figures. In February alone, 86,000 more jobs were created. There are now 260,000 registered vacancies, which—it is well known—are only a third of total vacancies.

    I was delighted with my right hon. Friend’s other announcements of success. He said that we had had six years of sustained economic growth, achieved through tax cuts. We have had six years of sustained increases in public expenditure and of real increases in National Health Service funding. That could only come about through managing the economy successfully. However, I suggest to the Minister that the Government have had one economic failure—they have not yet convinced the Opposition that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Mr. Corbyn The hon. Gentleman has them all the time.

    Mr. Shaw The Budget was about increasing personal responsibility and putting people’s incomes under their own control. It was also about home and share ownership. I am delighted that there are now 9 million shareholders in the country, a number which the Government proposals should increase. The benefits of privatisation are not only to widen ownership but to increase the profits being earned by the privatised companies to levels higher than they earned in the public sector. As a result of those profits, more taxes are paid to the Exchequer than when the companies were in the public sector. The privatised companies are also better at providing consumer services than they ever were in the public sector.

    Budgets are about income and how much the Government take away in taxation. I welcome the proposals on the taxation treatment of wives. For more than 200 years that treatment has been unfair. For much of that time the tax on marriage has been excessive. When I got married, I was charged more by the Inland Revenue on my marriage than my wife’s wedding ring cost.

    There are lower taxes for everyone in the Budget. Some will ask, “Why not more lower taxes?” About 750,000 people have been removed from tax altogether and some us might ask, “Why not a million?” The staff nurse who has had a 2.5 per cent. net pay increase as a result of tax deductions is a case in point. Some will ask why she should not be given a 3 per cent. reduction. I want more tax reductions.

    As for the famous business man that almost every Labour spokesman has mentioned, one must ask why the Opposition hate success. Why do Opposition Members hate the people who create jobs and who earn money overseas and bring it back to this country? Why do they hate successful business men who manage companies here and abroad and who bring profits and dividends to this country? The Opposition hate, and will always speak against, success. We should not lose sight of the massive contribution that the higher rate taxpayers have made to the country under the Government. When in government, the Labour party tried to squeeze them until the pips squeaked, but they raised only £800 million from the higher rate taxpayers. Under this Government, higher rate taxpayers pay £3,800 million a year which, even after the reduction of £1 billion, will still be about three times as much as Labour managed to get from them by the end of their years in office. I believe that next year the higher rate taxpayers will still be paying as much as this year because, with the tax cuts, they will be earning more, going in for fewer tax avoidance schemes, putting less money into pension plans and more into creating jobs and new businesses.

    We are going to remove many of the technical requirements that have been holding some share option schemes back, but they have not exactly held back share ownership in this country: 1,500,000 people are now in such schemes. We now have a true capital-owning democracy. I am pleased to say that some of those 1.5 million people are in my constituency. Many secretaries, typists and shop floor workers there are part of share option schemes and have done well out of them.

    I was also delighted by the abolition of yet another tax—capital duty. I have been involved for some time in my business career with helping to raise equity finance for companies and businesses, and capital duty was a considerable expense that hit those companies’ receipts right at the start of their new expansion phases. It came in just as the equity finance was being raised, and has proved extremely disadvantageous over the years.

    I wish to draw attention to the business expansion scheme, in which I worked for some time raising money for very small businesses. It has been a success, not as a means of helping the rich to avoid taxes as Opposition Members say—according to one report, more than 20 per cent. of the people who invest in the business expansion scheme pay tax at the standard rate—but in helping 2,200 small businesses, many of them having raised less than £100,000.

    However, there has been one thing wrong with the business expansion scheme. Indeed, four years ago I brought this to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who was then a Treasury Minister and is now the Secretary of State for Social Services. In a paper which is no doubt gathering dust in the Treasury, but which perhaps might have been brought out recently, I pointed out that we should cap the business expansion scheme. I am delighted that the Government are now to do so at £500,000 for any one company.

    However, I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to articles in today’s newspapers and to representations that have been made to me that that policy, as announced, could be unfair. There are several prospectuses out at the moment for the purpose of raising money under the business expansion scheme. The case of one small company has been brought to my attention. Although only about £600,000 is being raised to help expand the business and to create more jobs, that company may lose the whole of the money subscribed for shares because it may not he able to close the issue. That company has had to spend between £70,000 and £100,000 in legal and advisory fees, which will be lost if the issue cannot be closed. The problem of costs is caused by the Financial Services Act 1986, which is correct and proper in protecting shareholders but which has made more expensive the legal and professional advice that is required for the issue of prospectuses. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to consider that, if the date of the issue of a prospectus is after Budget day, then that date could be the closing date for investment under the business expansion scheme being limited to £500,000 or so. I would advise him that some relief is needed on this point.

    I realise that time is getting on and conclude by saying that I welcome the Budget and the tax changes that have been made. This Budget is about increasing the number of jobs in our economy and the prosperity of individuals and businesses. I believe that the nation will be a lot better off with the many years of sustained economic growth that lie ahead of us because of this Budget.

  • David Shaw – 1988 Speech on Enterprise

    David Shaw – 1988 Speech on Enterprise

    The speech made by David Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 4 March 1988.

    Nevertheless, it is welcome that a few Opposition Members have turned up. During the debate on the coal industry the other day they were notable by their absence.

    Not only did Britain lose products and opportunities; it lost new products. It lost the opportunity to develop the video equipment industry, and many new areas of business. There were problems with both the management and the work force. In some British companies there were five or six canteens. I used to go round some of those companies and compare them with the American subsidiaries operating in Britain which had only one canteen and in which the management were on the shop floor. The management were interested in what was going on. There was a complete contrast in attitudes between British companies and American subsidiaries operating over here. Fortunately, however, much of that is changing.

    We now do not have management and work force problems to the same degree, except when they are raised by Opposition Members. We have staff and personnel problems because management is beginning to recognise, and has recognised for some time, that management and work force in Britain have the same objective — to produce more goods.

    It is important that in this interesting debate we recognise that throughout Britain there is a lack of training. The Government have done quite a lot to encourage training in business. However, we still have problems which are highlighted by Mr. Robb Wilmot, former chief executive of ICL, who pointed out that one Korean company has more management graduates in it than there are in the whole of the United Kingdom. That means that we do not have the management skills or the background of management training that we need. I know that the Government will do much to develop that.

    I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs who has advocated the cause of British industry, and improvements in design and quality control. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has joined us. It is only appropriate that I should say that one of my friends recently attended a conference where my hon. Friend the Minister was speaking. He said to me, “Who is this man Butcher? The Government should wheel him out more often as he is a really good speaker.” In clothing design and other industries, Britain excels. At one time I acted as financial adviser to one business lady in the design sector. She constantly said to me that she had never been trained at design school to understand business, but she built up a business that employs some 50 people. We can imagine how large that business could have been if she had been trained in business skills.

    I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that the Government are encouraging the improvement of design manufacturing skills. Productivity has increased rapidly. The Government, through the enterprise initiative White Paper, will help further to develop the quality and marketing skills of British industry. We have come a long way since the problems of the 1970s. We have proved that it is not vast sums of money being put on the table in investment grants that improve British industry. We have proved that it is improved by the right economy, by reducing taxation, by encouraging our business men to succeed and by being more competitive against foreign competitors.

    All those skills that we are encouraging and all the improvements that we are trying to achieve in British industry are no good unless British industry earns profits. Opposition Members fail to understand the importance of profits. Profits are important because today’s profits, this year’s profits, provide the cash for next year’s investment, and investment in plant and machinery is extremely important for the country. Without more investment in plant and machinery, we cannot succeed and we cannot compete against overseas companies.

    I hope that the Government will continue doing what they have done to date so that there will be more improvement and investment in the people who are important in British industry and in new plant and equipment. I know that we will continue to achieve new production records as a result of the Government’s initiatives.

  • David Shaw – 1988 Speech on Coal Mining

    David Shaw – 1988 Speech on Coal Mining

    The speech made by David Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 2 March 1988.

    As we are talking about deficits, it is appropriate to ask why there is such a deficit in the turnout of Labour Members. I understand that 46 Labour Members have coal mines in their constituencies, yet not even 50 per cent. of them are present. Even Arthur Scargill had a 50 per cent. turnout, although it is questionable whether that turnout was given some encouragement by the more physically well built of his supporters.

    The poor attendance of Labour Members proves that the Opposition do not support the coal industry, and that it is dependent on its one main supporter — the Government. The Government have put over £,4.6 billion into the coal industry. Investment is at record levels, and by the next general election virtually all the plant and machinery in use in the British coal industry will have been bought by money given by the Government. I hope that as miners go to work in 1991 they will appreciate that it is the Government who have provided them with the tools to do their work.

    I am concerned about productivity at the Betteshanger coal mine in my constituency. It is a pity that it produces only 1.8 tonnes per man shift, compared with the national average of 4 tonnes. I know that the coal is of good quality, and I believe that most, if not all, of the miners want to keep the pit open. I know that many of them will work hard to keep it open.

    What we do not want is the disruption that has caused deficits in the past. That disruption and those deficits were caused by the attitude of the last Labour Government. It is worth noting the problems facing that Government, and the way in which they tackled them, in relation to deficits at that time. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) once said: I have never found the NUM in any way unreasonable where closures are necessary because of exhaustion or because pits are out of line in economic terms.”—[Official Report, 4 December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1015–16.] The NUM certainly was not unreasonable to him because, as Secretary of State for Energy, he closed 32 pits, and two Labour Governments closed 295 pits between them. The present Government have increased deficit grants, because the present Government have shown a commitment to right the wrong of previous Governments. They have shown a commitment to the coal industry and the coal miner. I hope that the message is now clear: that the miners should show a commitment to the Government.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 1988 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 1988 Christmas Broadcast

    The Christmas Broadcast made by HM Queen Elizabeth II on 25 December 1988.

    In the year just past, Prince Philip and I have joined in the celebration of some notable anniversaries. The events which they marked were hundreds of years apart, but each was important enough to get much attention in 1988.

    The earliest event which we remembered was the encounter with the Spanish Armada in 1588. The 400th anniversary fell in the same year in which we were able to mark the happy relations between Britain and Spain which now exist, by our State Visit to Madrid.

    Four hundred years after ‘the winds blew’ and the Spanish ships were scattered, the events were remembered, without animosity, in both countries.

    These prints from the Royal Library at Windsor illustrate the battles and some of the great fleet which gathered. This year, the present King of Spain showed me the rooms in the Escorial, where his predecessor, Philip the Second, planned the campaign. Had the fortunes of war gone against us, how very differently events in Britain and Europe would have unfolded.

    Earlier in the year, we marked another event of the first importance in our history – the 300th anniversary of what is popularly known as the Glorious Revolution.

    The invitation to King William and Queen Mary to accept the thrones of England and Scotland finally laid to rest the ‘enterprise of England’ which Philip of Spain set in hand.

    It thus gave the particular direction to our history which was to lead to the development of parliamentary democracy and the tradition of political and religious toleration which Britain enjoys today.

    It was a great pleasure for us to celebrate that event in the company of the Crown Prince of the Netherlands. Together we visited Torbay – which was where King William landed in 1688.

    It was shrouded with fog when we were there, but we did manage to see through the mist some of the hundreds of British and Dutch yachts that had assembled there.

    Three hundred years may seem a long time ago, but there are still some objects here in Buckingham Palace which bring to life William and Mary as people – and one which I particularly treasure is this little patch box that belonged to The Queen and which caries her monogram entwined with William’s on the lid.

    The 1988 anniversary season opened in Australia – with a grand party on Australia Day to mark the country’s 200th birthday. It was a party which went on for most of the year, but Prince Philip and I joined in the festivities in April and May.

    Like so many visitors in Bicentennial year, we brought home some souvenirs of our visit. In our case it was some delightful early prints of Sydney, which served to remind us of the extraordinary developments which have taken place in Australia in the short space of two hundred years.

    Contrast this scene of Sydney Harbour with the pictures we all saw of the crowded waters around the Opera House and the famous bridge in January this year.

    Centenaries may seem rather arbitrary occasions, but they nonetheless prompt us to look back into the past. When we do so, we can draw hope from seeing how ancient enmities have vanished; and how new nations have grown and established themselves in vigour and wisdom.

    Equally, they make us reflect on injustices and tragedies and inspire us to do our best to learn from these as well.

    To do that, we surely should draw inspiration from one other anniversary – the one we celebrate every year at this time, the birth of Christ.

    There are many grand and splendid pictures in the Royal Collection that illustrate this event, but one which gives me particular pleasure is this precious, almost jewel-like book.

    It is a ‘Book of Hours’, full of prayers and devotional readings. It’s in Latin, but it contains the most exquisite illuminations and it is these that speak to us most movingly.

    The anonymous person who drew the pictures nearly five hundred years ago has included all the familiar elements of the Christmas story which we hear with such pleasure every year.

    Here are the angels, bringing the glad tidings to the shepherds, who listen attentively. Down here, where baby Jesus lies in the stall, you can see Mary and Joseph, watching over him, quite unmoved, it seems, by the man playing the bagpipes overhead.

    The star over the stable has lit the way for all of us ever since, and there should be no one who feels shut out from that welcoming and guiding light. The legends of Christmas about the ox and the ass suggest that even the animals are not outside that loving care.

    Recently, many of you will have set up and decorated a Christmas tree in your homes. Often these are put by a window and the bright and shining tree is there for every passer-by to see and share. I like to think that if someone who feels lonely and unloved should see such a tree, that person might feel: ‘It was meant for me’.

    May the Christmas story encourage you, for it is a message of hope every year, not for a few, but for all.

    So in sending you my Christmas greeting, I pray that God may bless you – every one.

    As you probably all know, my Christmas Broadcast has to be recorded well before Christmas Day so that it can be made available to radio and television stations throughout the Commonwealth.

    Since I made that recording this year, we have all been shocked and distressed by a series of major disasters: here in Britain, the worst air crash in our history at Lockerbie and a serious train accident at Clapham; and in Armenia, a terrible earthquake.

    All three came with great suddenness and destroyed the lives of many people who were looking forward to celebrating Christmas with their families and friends. So there are many homes today where the joy of Christmas has been darkened by a cloud of sadness and grief.

    Our hearts and prayers go out to those who have been injured or bereaved, and it is my hope that the eternal message of Christmas will bring some comfort in the hour of sadness.

  • Tom Clarke – 1988 Speech on Bahadur Singh

    Tom Clarke – 1988 Speech on Bahadur Singh

    The speech made by Tom Clarke, the then Labour MP for Monklands West, in the House of Commons on 8 July 1988.

    This debate concerns the treatment of the late Bahadur Singh in Barlinnie prison. Even as I speak these words, I find it difficult to contemplate that a man 26 years of age, who lived for a short time in Coatbridge in my constituency and for whom I had been making representations from mid-winter until spring this year, died on 12 May—the day after his release, following six months in Barlinnie prison. Time after time, as his solicitor took up the case, his friends the Banga family in Coatbridge came to see me. I can still hear them saying, as they frequently did, “They will kill him, they will kill him.” Throughout, they had a lack of faith in the administration of British justice which many now think proved chillingly perceptive.

    I consider the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), to be one of the most humane of hon. Members, with a fine record as a Back Bencher interested in penal reform issues. I have to say, however, that after a number of representations and warnings, I cannot regard Mr. Singh’s death on a bus on the way home in the Punjab as a coincidence. There are far wider implications—of civil liberties, of basic human rights, of racism in Scottish prisons and, until recent times, a lack of Scottish Office concern about the problem—and I believe that these should be urgently addressed.

    Bahadur Singh had been languishing in Barlinnie prison after his arrest for a breach of the immigration laws, for not having proper documentation. Last year, he went to stay in Scotland with his friends, restaurant owner Autar Banga and Mrs. Jasbir Banga. In November, he was reported to the immigration authorities and arrested. He appeared in Airdrie sheriff court on Monday 9 November, when he pleaded guilty to a contravention of the Immigration Act 1971. He was fined £120 but because he had no money on his person, he was sentenced to 28 days and sent to Barlinnie pending the outcome of an appeal.

    I first took up his case with the Home Office on 18 November 1987, as Mr. Singh had sought political asylum. He was kept in prison while his application was processed. The inevitable questions arise: why did it take so long for the Home Office to make a decision and why, during the decision-making process, was he kept in prison? Those matters are diminished in importance by the most basic question of all: how was Bahadur Singh treated while he was in Barlinnie prison?

    I first drew the Government’s attention to allegations of violence against Bahadur Singh when I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), on 11 February and again on 26 February 1988. I understand that Mr. Singh changed his mind about appealing for political asylum from time to time, but as I said then in my letter to the Minister, Mr. Singh’s

    “indecision over his appeal results from … bullying and abuse which has caused very great distress.”

    The Minister’s written reply, received more than a month later, directed me to the Scottish Office, while the Minister proposed

    “to maintain his detention in view of his previous disregard for … immigration control.”

    Allegations of violence and racism continued, so on 28 March I wrote to the prison governor, Mr. Walker, that from the outset of Mr. Singh’s

    “committal to Barlinnie, I have had reports from his visitors of physical and cruel verbal abuse.”

    After a brief acknowledgment, the governor replied on 21 April, nearly a month later, in the following words:

    “I have had the allegations investigated by a member of my senior management team. Mr. Singh speaks virtually no English and it was necessary to interview him through another inmate who was acting as an interpreter.”

    In that interview, according to the governor’s letter, Mr. Singh apparently stated that he

    “had no particular problems at that time”

    and no real fears for his own safety, although a few slogans had been daubed on his cell door. That account of the investigation is strongly disputed and I shall return to it later.

    I would have expected that a matter as serious as this, raised by a Member of the House, would have been personally investigated by the governor and not delegated as a matter of little importance. Moreover, a letter from the governor to Strathclyde community relations council a few weeks later implied that there had been no problems with the treatment of ethnic minority prisoners. In the words of the council, his reply was “complacent” and “misleading”; it was not consistent with the facts.

    I was still very unhappy as allegations continued to mount, so I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 3 May 1988. One of the most unacceptable aspects of the whole affair is that the Secretary of State’s office did not reply to my letter until Thursday 2 June—the day when, by another remarkable coincidence, the Glasgow Evening Times broke the news to his office that Mr. Singh had died several weeks before. I believe that the House is entitled to an explanation for that insensitive delay from t he Secretary of State. At the very least, his role seems to represent administrative incompetence which cannot be dismissed lightly in view of the tragic consequences.

    I have now had the opportunity to speak at length to crucial witnesses of the alleged events. Mr. Mohammed Sattar is a young Pakistani who at one point shared a cell with Bahadur Singh. It should be said in passing that Mr. Sattar had a fracas with his girl friend—now happily his wife—which led to a short stay in prison. There is a conflict of evidence between Mr. Sattar and Mr. Walker, the prison governor. Whereas Mr. Walker had said—I return to my earlier point—that Mr. Singh had made no complaint, Mohammed Sattar insists—and I can confirm that his English is very fluent—that he acted as an interpreter for Mr. Singh in the presence of the governor’s representative, and that Mr. Singh did, indeed, complain about beatings and racist behaviour. In my conversation with Mr. Sattar he repeated the allegations that he had first made in the Glasgow Evening Times when he said:

    “They were just banging at them with steel bars and Bahadur and the other man were on their knees trying to protect themselves.”

    I can do no other than underline that conflict of evidence in the hope that the matter will be investigated.

    I have also talked, with the help of an interpreter, to another key witness, Mr. Vijay Kumar. Mr. Kumar had also alleged that he had suffered racial harassment while an inmate in Barlinnie prison, again as a result of a breach of immigration rules. However, on 16 June 1988, when his case came before Lord Weir in the Court of Session, Mr. Kumar was set free. Lord Weir used the following words:

    “It was not in the tradition of the Scottish administration of justice for someone to be detained for months and months in such circumstances.”

    I cannot stress too strongly that it is of the utmost importance that no steps should be taken to deport Mr. Kumar from this country before he has the opportunity to give evidence to an inquiry into the scale of racial harassment in Scottish prisons and, in particular, the death of Bahadur Singh. My hon. Friends and I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us an assurance to that effect today. Let me add that it is a tragic pity that Lord Weir was never given the opportunity to reach the same conclusion in the case of Bahadur Singh.

    Having spent four hours last Sunday listening to Mohammed Sattar and Vijay Kumar, I am convinced that they are telling the truth. I understand that the Minister has already taken some steps, and I thank him for that; but I insist that the problem warrants a full and open public inquiry. The Scottish Office must demonstrate that it takes the issue of racism seriously by responding to that call.

    The allegations are serious ones. They are that Mr. Bahadur Singh was subjected to a series of harrowing racial attacks while in one of Her Majesty’s prisons; that Mr. Singh, a timid man who spoke virtually no English, was beaten up in his cell by five white inmates carrying metal bars and kitchen knives; that he was attacked while he mixed with other prisoners; that he had hot tea and soup thrown at him and was struck by a metal tray in the dining room; that racial slogans and threats were daubed on his cell door; and that the wardens specifically responsible for that part of the prison pretended not to notice any of this. It could hardly have helped that there is the suggestion—and I can go no further than that—that Mr. Singh was kept for some of his stay in a cell for 23 hours per day with a light on permanently.

    I have been told by the Under-Secretary that Mr. Singh was medically examined on 28 April. But even if that was so, it does not explain what happened between that date and 12 May when he was released.

    There are other questions to be answered. Why did it take six months to deal with such a case? Are there other similar cases in Scottish prisons at the moment? Why, after such delays, was he rushed straight on to a plane and deported without being allowed to let friends and relations know what was happening? Is it true that he spent his last night in Scotland, not in Barlinnie, but in a police cell in Strathclyde police headquarters, and if so, why was he moved and why did his friends not have access? What precisely was the state of Mr. Singh’s health at that time and, frankly, was he fit to undertake that long flight?

    Why do we lock up illegal immigrants beside violent criminals in our toughest jails? Why do we run that risk of racist intimidation or, to put it another way, condemn people, whose only crime was to want to live here, to long periods of solitary confinement for their own protection?

    Why is there no purpose-built detention centre for immigration cases in Scotland, or at least a special arrangement with low security prisons? In a recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), the Minister said that there are so few such cases in Scottish prisons that special arrangements are not neccessary. Surely the Minister accepts that if the numbers involved are so small, the establishment of a special detention centre would be so much simpler. It might be even less costly than present arrangements.

    What special arrangements exist in our prisons for religious worship by minorities? What proportion of our prison officers come from ethnic minorities, and what steps are the Government taking to boost recruitment? What arrangements for special diets exist in Scottish prisons, and how sensitively are cultural questions tackled by prison administrators? Are there any members of ethnic minorities who are prison visitors in Barlinnie, and will the Under-Secretary tell us how he plans to increase their number around Scotland? I understand that the Home Office in England and Wales has recommended that each prison should have a race relations policy and senior management given proper training. Has any such policy even been talked about by the Scottish Office? Is racial harassment a problem in its own right or does the Scottish Office treat it as just another breach of prison rules?

    For all those reasons, I have called for an official inquiry into Bahadur Singh’s detention and subsequent death. I try not to underestimate the problems of administering Scottish prisons and I have no difficulty in accepting that the vast majority of prison staff are thoroughly decent people. But that cannot, on its own, be enough. If there is something wrong with the system we must try to put it right, and what is wrong is the absence of a clear, central anti-racist policy.

    Bahadur Singh is dead. But there are, I hope, many lessons that we can learn from his short life—particularly the last six months of it. We must face facts and tackle racism in our prisons and in wider society as a matter of urgency. This is, I believe, the least we can do in tribute to a young man whose love for this land was greater than we could return.

  • John Prescott – 1988 Speech on Piper Alpha Explosion

    John Prescott – 1988 Speech on Piper Alpha Explosion

    The speech made by John Prescott, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Energy, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1988.

    We on the Labour side of the House very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. We offer our deepest sympathy to the families and all involved in the tragic event. We should like to express our deepest appreciation—and, yes, admiration—for the excellent rescue services that are provided in these most difficult circumstances and for the onshore response by the police, hospital, and other services. It reminds us how much those people contribute in difficult circumstances. Those are not simply words, but express great admiration.

    Considering the magnitude of the tragedy, we fully endorse the Secretary of State’s decision to hold a public inquiry. However, does he accept that that inquiry should be open and wide-ranging and that its scope should not exclude anything in examining the safe operation of such installations? Although this is not in his statement, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Health and Safety Executive will conduct its own investigation into the technical causes and effects of the tragedy so that it can reach a conclusion quickly while we await the longer public examination?

    Will the Secretary of State confirm that the public inquiry will address itself to the following issues: the increasing number of accidents and dangerous occurrences in the industry in the past few years; the reduction in inspections and maintenance in the past few years, which have been highlighted and drawn to our attention by the Select Committee on Energy; the increasing pressures on costs and safety practices, and the low level of expenditure on training in what is clearly a profitable industry? Will he also address the issue of no-fault compensation, which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and which should be considered by an inquiry and considered for inclusion in any statutory system?

    Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that health and safety legislation does not fully apply to this industry, highlighting the conflict between his Department’s responsibility for production and for safety? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give further consideration to making safety the first priority? Will he now review that conflict of interest and consider whether the Health and Safety Executive should extend its powers and responsibilities to that North sea industry?

    Mr. Parkinson

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous tributes to the emergency services. I shall take up his points one by one. Of course, the inquiry will wish to be far-reaching and to discover the fundamental causes to make sure that if there are any wider implications from this particular event and any lessons to be learned for other operators, that information will be disseminated as quickly as possible. It will be a deep and far-reaching inquiry.

    The Health and Safety Executive has responsibilities in this area but, by agreement, it delegates them to the inspectorate in my Department, which is recognised worldwide as being technically one of the best qualified inspectorates. Therefore, it is not true to say that the Health and Safety Executive is not involved. It does have rights and duties but delegates them to my Department’s inspectorate.

    On the question of the increasing number of accidents, it is simply not true that accidents are increasing in the North sea. In fact, last year the number of serious accidents reported fell from 101 in 1986 to 59, although 59 is still far too high a figure and we wish to keep the pressure on to ensure that that improvement is maintained.

    On the question of the reductions in surveys, I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is not only the inspectorate of my Department which attends the platforms. It may interest him to know that an inspector finished the most recent inspection of that platform on 28 June. Lloyd’s Register of Shipping is also under a responsibility annually to certify the platforms and equipment and the Department of Transport must also check the safety arrangements and safety equipment on board. Therefore, the platforms are under continuous inspection, not just from my Department acting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, but also from other Government Departments which themselves have duties, and independent bodies, such as Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, which has a duty to carry out the full certification.

    On the question whether my Department should continue to carry out this work as agent for the Health and Safety Executive, as he knows, this was carefully examined by the Burgoyne committee, which reported in 1981. That committee said in its majority report that the present arrangements were, in its opinion, the best possible. I accept that there was a minority report which disagreed, but the majority report, whose recommendations the Government accepted, felt that the present arrangements were the best.

  • Cecil Parkinson – 1988 Statement on Piper Alpha Explosion

    Cecil Parkinson – 1988 Statement on Piper Alpha Explosion

    The statement made by Cecil Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Energy, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1988.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the explosion and fire on the Piper Alpha platform last night.

    At about 10 o’clock last night a serious explosion occurred at the platform. The coastguard service was informed and an emergency control centre was established. All emergency services were immediately alerted. Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and coastguard helicopters and surface vessels in the area, including a NATO detachment, were committed to the search for survivors. Occidental, the operators of the platform, activated its emergency centre to control the fire and oil and gas flows.

    The explosion appears to have been so violent that the platform was effectively destroyed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went early this morning to Aberdeen. He has kept me in continuous touch with developments. My latest information is that there were 229 people on the platform at the time of the explosion, of whom 65 are known to have survived. There were three people in a small boat involved in the rescue, of whom one is known to have survived. Sixteen people are known to be dead and 150 are at present unaccounted for.

    Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to convey to all those concerned her heartfelt sympathy for the injured and bereaved and her admiration for the gallant efforts of the firefighting, rescue and medical services in preventing even greater loss of life. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in expressing our sympathies and in paying tribute to the efforts of the emergency services.

    Oil and gas production in the hostile environment of the North sea demands the greatest attention to safety. Safety is the first priority of the Government and the operators. We apply the highest safety standards to all phases of development: design, construction and operation. We have also established procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. These are regularly rehearsed.

    The Government are determined to establish urgently the cause of the explosion and the lessons to be learned. Nearly 30,000 people work in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea. They and their families have the right to expect the fullest possible investigation. The Government will therefore be setting up a full public inquiry as soon as possible.

  • Tom Pendry – 1988 Speech on Strip Searches at Greenham Common

    Tom Pendry – 1988 Speech on Strip Searches at Greenham Common

    The speech made by Tom Pendry, the then Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, in the House of Commons on 6 July 1988.

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House what I consider to be a serious breach of ministerial and parliamentary conduct. On 24 May 1984 I asked the Secretary of State for Defence

    “for what purposes the Ministry of Defence police are carrying out strip searches at Greenham common; how many strip searches have taken place there; what was found; and if he will make a statement.”

    The answer was supplied by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who is now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. He stated:

    “No such strip searches have been carried out at RAF Greenham common.”—[Official Report, 24 May 1084; Vol. 60, c.552.]

    I was prompted to ask the question by a constituent of mine who alleged that six months earlier she had been strip-searched at Greenham common. As I believed that the Minister’s word was honourable, I told her that I could not pursue the matter in a parliamentary sense.

    Fortunately for her, she persevered. Yesterday, at Newbury county court, she was awarded £2,000-plus damages and about £6,000 costs at the expense of the Ministry of Defence because she had been strip-searched at Greenham common.

    I believe that the Minister should account for his misleading answer from the Dispatch Box. He should apologise to me, and, more importantly, to my constituent, Stella Mann-Cairns, and all other women who have had to put up with this indignity. Although he has moved to another Department, he should assure the House that the Government no longer pursue that policy.

    I have given notice of this matter to the Minister and to the Leader of the House, and I am surprised that neither of them is present. I hope that the Minister will apologise. If he does not, he should do the honourable thing and resign.

  • David Martin – 1988 Speech on the Abolition of Gazumping

    David Martin – 1988 Speech on the Abolition of Gazumping

    The speech made by David Martin, the then Conservative MP for Portsmouth South, in the House of Commons on 5 July 1988.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent gazumping in connection with buying and selling homes.

    The disgraceful practice of gazumping has been raised in the House on several occasions over the years, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It has also been the object of attention by the Law Commission and, from time to time, by the legal profession’s magazines and the press. A remarkable number of right hon. and hon. Members have shared with me the experiences of their constituents, and I have been helped by them.

    The word “gazump” is based on “gazoomph,” which is a graphic Yiddish word meaning to swindle or to cheat. It applies when the purchaser and the vendor of a home have agreed on a definite price and then, before contracts are exchanged, the vendor raises the price to that purchaser or sells at a higher price to someone else. It does not apply to the converse case of the purchaser withdrawing before exchange of contracts. That is a nuisance and the breaking of an agreement, but it is not gazumping. I have some ideas on that, too, but I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so they must be developed at another time.

    Gazumping has been described as a method of parting rich men from their money—and it certainly does that. The greater problem is that it also parts the relatively less well off from theirs, especially young people and first-time buyers.

    Scottish law and practice is far nearer to what I would like to see happen in England and Wales. It has been said that nothing stops us operating the same system. That may theoretically be true, but it will never happen without legislation.

    First, my main aim it to give 14 days to a purchaser to exchange after the price has been agreed. During those 14 days, if the vendor backs out, the vendor would have to pay the purchaser 5 per cent. of the agreed price, plus any specific and reasonable costs incurred by the purchaser during that time. Any sum less than 5 per cent. would not be a deterrent, because gazumping is in multiples of thousands of pounds these days, even on less expensive property. Therefore, as in Scotland, the price would be fixed at the outset. In England and Wales exchange would follow in a short time and certainly would exist at an earlier stage. The parties could then agree either a long or short period for completion, depending significantly on the need for the purchaser to sell his or her home in the meantime.

    Secondly, considerations of time would be more important. My Bill would promote a speeding up of the all too ponderous and needlessly mystifying processes of conveyancing. For all the welcome increases in home ownership in recent years, in many respects we are still in the age of the quill pen when it comes to law and practice. Solicitors, in particular, must grow more used to the idea that they are in a commercial world. Their negative attitude to advertising is revealing. The advent of licensed conveyancers has helped to bring the profession face to face with commercial reality. Many have recognised and seized the opportunities to co-operate with or to operate property shops, but more needs to be done.

    Thirdly, home purchase would be helped by insisting on more, and more accurate, information in the agents’ particulars. That is a subject in itself. I have seen particulars offering me

    “a modern system of central hating”,

    “gilt” spelt “guilt” and even

    “rent and rat free accommodation”.

    Fourthly, the vendor would be required to provide far more information to a purchaser when he puts his property on the market. He would be required to provide a survey from a surveyor with proper professional qualifications. No honest vendor should object to that. If the purchaser wished to be more thorough, he could obtain a further survey on his own. At the same time, the vendor would also be required to provide the usual standard searches and inquiries.

    Local authorities should be able to produce all the relevant information quickly and efficiently. This week, Portsmouth city council is pioneering a new computer system, as too is Wigan. The system will be part of a national network, where solicitors, estate agents, banks and others will be able to obtain direct answers to the usual searches and inquiries. One third of Portsmouth property is now held on computer, and the aim is for complete coverage by the end of 1989. We have tolerated for far too long too many expectations of delay in what ought to be a quick and simple process.

    I understand that the current ministerial response is that law reform should stay out of this area, that the remedy lies in the hands of those involved in house buying rather than in the law, and that there is nothing to stop people in England and Wales using the Scottish system if they want to. The trouble with that line is that it is far too complacent. Unless we have legislation, ordinary house buyers will never be able to bring about any significant change in the practices and customs of professionals, just as they could not tackle the scandal of the conveyancing monopoly without legislative help.

    All that is lacking is the political will to legislate. I hope that my effort today, added to those of many others of all parties, will have its effect. My system is not perfect, but it would make things better. That is no more or less than most legislation can hope to achieve.

    A gazumper is a swindler, a cheat and a racketeer. The present state of the law and practice allows him or her to operate without sanction of any kind and regardless of the damage caused to innocent parties. That is neither ethical nor just. It cannot be right. My Bill would provide some redress. I commend its introduction to the House.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Martin, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Rhodri Morgan and Miss Ann Widdecombe.