UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Alan Lee Williams – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Lee Williams, the then Labour MP for Hornchurch, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    I warmly welcome the Gracious Speech. Although it is not one of the most exciting Queen’s Speeches that we have heard for a number of years. It is an immensely practical speech. I think it indicates that the Government will give priority to the fighting of inflation, so I welcome that very strongly.

    I should like to make a brief reference to the paragraph in the Queen’s Speech which calls for an improvement in the Atlantic alliance. I draw attention to this item because I think that an opportunity has been missed by not giving higher priority to the question of standardisation. It is a missed opportunity, because President Carter made a very notable speech in March of last year on this subject. Both the Congress and the Senate have made their position clear. That is that they are very interested in pushing the standardisation of weapons within the Atlantic alliance, which, incidentally, would bring great economic benefits to Britain.

    Therefore, I am very disappointed that there is no particular reference to it in the Queen’s Speech, although, perhaps, proposals will be brought forward to the House. However, as there will not be a debate about defence included in the debate on the Loyal Address, the House will not be informed about that.

    I very much regret that during the debate on the Loyal Address, in which we shall be devoting a long time to a number of other subjects, there has been no demand from either the Opposition or other quarters of the House—apart from ​ myself and, I hope, others too—for at least some discussion about defence.

    Standardisation brings great benefits to us, but it also raises another subject of which I should like to give notice rather than attempt to debate tonight, because no Defence Minister is present. I am really just putting down a marker. In my judgment, one cannot discuss standardisation of weapons without dealing with the question of specialisation within the Atlantic alliance itself. One goes with the other. I should like to see the Government giving some priority to this matter in the coming Session.

    What I mean by specialisation is that further thought should be given to the proposition which has been discussed within the alliance for years—that is, that individual members of the alliance should be encouraged to concentrate on producing those forces that will not be copied or repeated elsewhere within the alliance. For example, there is a very strong case for having an air force composed of Dutch, German and United Kingdom elements, so that we have a tactical air force which is truly Europeanised, and one could extend that argument—I do not intend to do so this evening—to the naval forces.

    I do not think that enough attention has been given to this subject, and it is part of the argument for standardisation and the proper effectiveness of the Atlantic alliance to allow nation States to concentrate on the provision of the arms and services in which they have particular expertise. I believe that an opportunity has been missed by not giving proper priority to this subject. This will cause some disappointment, but perhaps my disappointment can soon be overcome if at some stage—perhaps my hon. Friends will pass this on—some reference is made to this subject by the Government.

    If it is not, disappointment will be felt by those who have been pushing this matter for a long time and asking the Government to give top priority to standardisation. I hope that, once the Government have accepted that, they will go on to look at the implications of specialisation so that we can increase the effectiveness of the Atlantic alliance.

    I welcome the Gracious Speech, but I ask the Government to make a statement at the earliest opportunity on the matters that I have raised.

  • Albert Costain – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Albert Costain, the then Conservative MP for Folkestone and Hythe, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    The arc lights are now out, the ceremonies to which we looked forward today are over and we are back to reality. When history comes to record this last Session of a somewhat pathetic Parliament, it will be described as the marking time Parliament. It is marking time because the Prime Minister is waiting until the gush of oil from the North Sea is sufficient to give this country an income which will allow him to make up some of the defects which the Government have brought upon themselves.

    It was perhaps unusual for the general public this morning to see a House crowded with Members and tonight with as many empty spaces as there were Members this morning. It is hard for the public to understand what it is all about. But those of us with parliamentary experience realise that it is the custom of the House that certain days are given to certain subjects and that Members have gone away to prepare their speeches on specific subjects.

    I should like to deal in some detail with the hospital services referred to in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, I promised the Secretary of State for Social Services that I would correct an impression which I gave in a speech in July when I drew attention to the fact that he had special priority for hospital treatment. The right hon. Gentleman took it the wrong way. Indeed, he wrote saying that I did not appreciate how ill he was. However, in my speech I said that we hoped his ​ illness was not severe and that he would soon be able to come back to the House.

    The point that I wanted to make was not that he had priority for hospital treatment. I should point out that my brother died from a heart attack because he could not get medical treatment quickly enough. His illness did not allow it. What I wanted to point out and would point out again—the Secretary of State will have the right to reply if he winds up the debate tomorrow—was the extraordinary situation of a Minister of the Crown saying that he would only go into a public ward and would expect to receive the same treatment as perhaps one of my constituents who might come from a more lowly background.

    The Minister rightly had conferences with his officials in a public ward. We know that took place. I do not suggest that he should not have done it. If he can do it and keep his health, so much the better. What I find so extraordinary is that, for doctrinaire purposes, the Government should feel that it is all right for a Minister to go into a public ward and to have press facilities when in fact it would be better for the hospital and everyone else concerned if the Minister were to go into a private ward, just like the director of a large company, and have his meetings there.

    I make no more of it. I apologise to the Secretary of State if I misled him into thinking that he got priority because he was ill. Anyone who is ill should get priority. However, the Minister should not boast that he went in to a public ward. I promised that the next time I spoke on the subject I would make the matter clear. I hope that I have made it clear. If the Minister speaks tomorrow, he may wish to add to what I have said. If he disagrees with what I have said, I shall be happy to intervene in the debate to make it clear if I have not done so.

    This Queen’s Speech is a marking time speech. It hopes to collect votes. It has been designed to appeal to and bring together the smaller parties. Therefore, we find promises and tempting bait for the smaller parties. We find that it makes reference to the national aspirations of each country of the United Kingdom. But let me leave that and come to the Speech itself.

    ​The first statement which I find particularly interesting is:

    “My Government will seek to ensure that respect for the law is maintained”.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has dealt with that matter in some detail. I shall not bore the House further, except to say that, as long as we have Cabinet Ministers in picket lines defying the police, I do not see how the Government will ensure the respect for law and order which they claim in the Gracious Speech they intend to maintain.

    I found another item interesting. It is an attempt to catch votes. It reads:

    “My Government are resolved to strengthen our democracy by providing new opportunities for citizens to take part in the decisions that affect their lives.”

    No hon. Member would deny the right of an individual to state his case. I was once PPS to the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He was anxious that individuals should have the right to state their case, particularly at planning inquiries. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport in the Chamber because a number of such inquiries affect roads.

    Something has gone basically wrong. People seem to feel that the only thing that they should do when they are given an opportunity to state their case is to oppose. We have had the pathetic experience of public inquiries being interrupted by those who oppose a particular proposal. Such people act in an undemocratic manner. They act in that way because of the strong lobby which believes that that is the only way in which to state a case.

    Perhaps we should take this opportunity to give greater thought to a more constructive approach to planning. I can remember saying that the most important thing in a person’s life is to have a house of his own, and the next most important is to form a society to ensure that no one else comes along to spoil the view.

    Punch once published a cartoon showing someone at a half-built house saying to his bride “We have bought our house, let us now form a residents’ association to see that no other houses are built here.” We must have machinery to enable ​ people to express an alternative rather than a negative or positive view.

    I found it difficult to pick out the proposals which are intended to provide a greater opportunity for public participation. I presume that the public should have the opportunity to discuss the White Paper on broadcasting. All hon. Members receive many letters expressing opinions about programmes and broadcasting procedures. Hon. Members are regarded with slight suspicion by the broadcasting authorities. Perhaps arrangements could be made to enable constituents to communicate their views to the authorities without having to write to them. Some people find it difficult to write letters. Sometimes they sign petitions which they have not read, but they find it difficult to write letters.

    I am particularly interested in constituency terms in the Bills which will seek to improve safety and discipline at sea and to help control marine pollution. My constituency is particularly susceptible to the effects of Channel collisions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), who is present tonight, knows very well that if the ships get past Folkestone they then have to get past Dover, with all the danger of the Dogger Bank and the Goodwin Sands. The difficulty is in meeting the need for more experienced officers and crew to control these ships.

    I have the honour of having Trinity House headquarters at Folkestone. I frequently have discussions with the pilots who operate from this station. I am always greatly impressed by their devotion to the service. They will board ships in the most treacherous conditions of storm, wind and wave because they feel it essential for them to guide the vessels through. I understand that the Government have consulted Trinity House, and it appears to be reasonably satisfied with the legislation which is proposed. Until we see the Bills, we are unable to judge them, but when they appear we shall study them most carefully.

    The next aspect of the Gracious Speech which concerns my constituency greatly is the part dealing with fishing policy.

    The Speech contains the extraordinary statement:

    “My Government will continue to press for improvements in the Common Agricultural Policy”.

    ​Of course they will. We always intended to do that. When I had the honour of working with the then Secretary of State for the Environment, he always said that until we got into the Common Market we would be unable to make our proper contribution; but having got into the EEC we are in a position to make it.

    The Gracious Speech continues:

    “They will also take all measures necessary to conserve fish stocks and will continue their efforts to achieve an acceptable Common Fisheries policy within the EEC.”

    I have never had any doubts, and those who have been connected with the negotiations and with our fishing policy know very well that we have always contended that the most important part of that policy is the conservation of stocks.

    I have a great suspicion that the Minister of Agriculture, when he thought that an election was about to be cast upon the country, over-exaggerated the difficulties so that he could solve them to his own satisfaction and try in that way to win votes.

    The Health Service is another item in the Gracious Speech which is to be debated at length—I believe it is tomorrow. It is extraordinary, in view of the amount which is now being spent on the Health Service, to realise how much it has deteriorated. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree represents an important part of Liverpool. I have been sitting on the Public Accounts Committee where we have been investigating in great detail the additional cost of the Liverpool teaching hospital. It is extraordinary that a hospital which cost nearly £50 million should be delayed from opening because of a disagreement between people in the hospital wondering whether they would be made redundant. A hospital of that sort, which costs so much in interest charges, should be used to the ultimate and not be delayed by bureaucratic procedures.

    In my own constituency we fought to get a new hospital built at Folkestone. In the event, it was built at Ashford. Again, we have a hospital which has been completed and ought to have been commissioned, but it has not been commissioned because there are some disagreements between the parties concerned.

    I hope very much that when the Secretary of State speaks tomorrow he will ​ explain in some detail and tell us what positive steps he is taking to get these hospitals running as the public expect them to run. I hope that he will say how he will cut down the numbers of bureaucrats, which have been building up. Many of the staff in the hospital services joined them in order to save lives. Many of them now say to me that all that they are doing is wasting paper. This is one of the problems. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity tomorrow to explain what positive steps he is taking to help to carry out what the hospitals are intended to do, which is to alleviate suffering and save lives.

  • Anthony Steen – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Steen, the then Conservative MP for Liverpool Wavertree, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    I wish to speak about the part of the Gracious Speech to which I do not believe that other hon. Members have yet addressed their minds. I refer to the great towns and cities and revival of those great cities, because that has been a major plank of successive Government strategies, both economically and socially.

    I think it was the Wilsonian Administration about 10 years ago which started it off. It was quite natural, therefore, that in the Gracious Speech there should be a line about the inner city areas stating that the Government would continue to press forward with their partnership plans. Presumably, the Secretary of State for the Environment will be at the helm, as he has been up to now, directing the operations. This Session he will be armed with the Inner Urban Areas Act and the partnership committees now fully in being. The only problem is that the Secretary of State has now been at the helm for some three or four years and not very much has happened to show his work.

    If one looks at the cities, one will not see the new dawn about which the Secretary of State has been talking. In fact, many people have grown restless when they have seen no evidence that the cities are on the mend. They also find it difficult to reconcile the utterances of the Secretary of State, who keeps ​ saying how gratified he is with progress, with the stark reality which shows our major cities continuing in their rapid decline. How can the Secretary of State possibly equate his optimism with the persistently high levels of unemployment which we find in most of our major urban areas, with the lengthening list of firms wanting to leave the inner cities, or with the continuing exodus of people from the inner areas to the outer zones and the ever-increasing shortage of good homes? I am only sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment is unable to be with us tonight. In the face of this situation, the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act are damaging. I shall explain why this is so.

    The Act has given the poor urban authorities the powers to increase their borrowing. Therefore, those already heavily committed in debt to crippling housing debt charges can just increase those charges. The Act has tempted some of the most deprived urban authorities to become even more deprived. It is driving them deeper and deeper into debt and creating even more problems for them in the future.

    The Inner Urban Areas Act is just one manifestation of the tricks up the Government’s sleeve. It is a mirage created by the Government that prosperity for our cities is on the horizon. The illusion has been fortified by a whole gamut of cleverly chosen named projects which convey positive thinking but which so far have meant absolutely nothing.

    For example, there are now seven so-called partnership schemes covering 15 local authority districts. There are 15 programme districts and 14 recently announced designated districts. These are on top of the existing areas which are included in development area status, special development status and the old assisted areas. No one quite understands what these areas are or what they do. All we know is that there has been no sign of any revival in our towns and cities in the last four years.

    It seems from the Gracious Speech that the Government propose to continue with those schemes and with those names. In the last few years the Secretary of State has followed the publication of the White Paper on policy for the inner cities by doing two things. He has topped up the ​ urban aid programme, which had lost its real force, and he has introduced a Bill, which is now an Act, which will make the poor local authorities poorer because they will be asked and expected to increase their debt charges.

    The White Paper from which we expected so much is no more than the culmination of a decade of activity in research analysis action projects which have now cost the taxpayer £100 million. The House will recollect where all this began—with the urban aid programme, which first came about in 1968. This was to deal with the pockets of deprivation. Then we had the community development project, the educational priority areas, the young volunteer force, the neighbourhood schemes, the urban guideline studies and the inner area studies. Then research was started into transmitted deprivation, followed by the quality of life studies. Then we had the urban deprivation unit and comprehensive community programmes, and the GLC set up a deprived areas project. There are now area management and research trials in Liverpool.

    When the White Paper was published 18 months to two years ago, the nation held its breath and thought that at last, after all the research schemes and action projects, the actual action was about to start. The principal actors seemed to be in the right place, the set-up was brilliant, the lyrics were racy, the producer came from a good stable, and, indeed, it was to be a spectacular. What, in fact, did we see? None other than our old friend Mickey Mouse. The Government’s approach to the cities’ problems has been as meaningful as a Walt Disney cartoon.

    In Liverpool there have been only three partnership meetings in the last 18 months. These were chaired by the Secretary of State for the Environment himself. There have been a few other Ministers present—from Industry, Employment and Education. Then the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal and Labour groups also attend, and county councillors, the health authority and many others are involved in partnership meetings.

    If that was all we were witnessing, we would perhaps be content that there was one group of people looking once again ​ into the problems of the inner city. But that partnership committee is but one of a great number of committees. There is an officers’ steering committee consisting of more than a dozen principal officers, not to mention the working groups of senior officials on the economy, housing, physical areas, environment, recreation and transport. There is also an inner area sub-committee made up of 20 councillors, and there are more committees and sub-committees than I have mentioned.

    But as the non-statutory bodies—the voluntary organisations and community groups—are not involved in the partnership, despite pressure from this side of the House that they should be included, the voluntary bodies have started to go it alone. They have set up rival partnership committees. The one that is now running in Liverpool has 170 organisations meeting every two or three months, running exactly in parallel to all the other Government committees. The conflict and confrontation are right there in the partnership.

    Despite the buzz and whizzing of papers through the official corridors, the numbers of acres of vacant and derelict land in Liverpool are still around 2,000, and over three-quarters belongs to the city council and nationalised industries.

    Therefore, despite the huge build-up to the effect that all the problems were to be solved, we have still exactly the same number of derelict and vacant areas which are not being used to produce wealth or create jobs in the very area where the partnership committee is at work. It is here that we see land hoarding at its worst. This has caused artificially high book values. Not surprisingly, authorities cannot find buyers because scarcity knocks up the rent and rates as well as driving small businesses away from the inner cities, and jobs with them.

    This is no way to woo back the thousands who have already fled the inner city in the last decade. But surely that is what the partnership is purported to be all about. It is about revitalising the inner areas, creating new jobs and new homes and developing new businesses. What is the point of building new advance factories in inner Liverpool on Government money when there are so may good, empty, older factories which are not used and which, with a little modernisation, rehabilitation and imagination, ​ could be good for use again? What justification can there be now that the Inner Urban Areas Act is in force for permitting the Lucas Aerospace factory, a company which has closed its large old premises in my constituency, to move out into a green field site on the edge of Liverpool, depriving the inner city of both jobs and rate income?

    That makes nonsense of partnership, because that is what partnership would not approve of. There is plenty of space left in Liverpool and many other principal areas which could be used first before green field site development. But green field site development on the edges of a city is always cheaper and the infrastructure in the new sites is more reasonable than if one seeks to put infrastructure back into the inner cities. One reason for this situation is the artificially high land value which the inner city now attracts.

    It is also strange that the partnership concentrates on the inner areas, because many of the large provincial towns, in which the population has moved from the inner city to the outer city, are where the concentrations should be. The populations are no longer in the core areas because, as a result of demolition, they have moved to the edges. Yet the edges of the city comprise the one area—and Liverpool is no exception—not included in the partnership.

    The partnership specifically excludes those major areas of population density and concentrates on inner area revival. It is in the outer city that the social problems exist. The one thing that the partnership areas have in common is that they include a number of marginal seats within their boundaries, and they have also suffered from severe cut-backs in public expenditure over the past five years.

    For example, we were spending £5·3 million on improvement grants in Liverpool in 1974–75. In 1977–78 that figure was down to £1·5 million. Local authority mortgage loans to buy and improve totalled £4·7 million in 1974–75 but barely £1 million last year. If the partnership is talking about reviving the inner city and rehabilitating the older houses, it must be pointed out that the sums of money in the local authority budget which could do this work have been drastically cut.

    What is partnership all about? All one can say about it is that the Government are trying to put right the money they took away. There is no question of giving more money or new money. They are merely putting back and making good the previous losses. If this is all the partnership is about, why set up such an elaborate structure? We could have done without the Minister and his colleagues walking down Dale Street in Liverpool, smiling from side to side and posing for local photographers. But that is what it appears partnership is about, because to date the new money is hardly sufficient to replace the old and the replacement money is accompanied by far greater Government controls and sanctions. First they took it away, then they put it back to what it was before—but with increased controls and sanctions.

    Even on the most charitable interpretation, the most that can be said for the partnership in our area is that it is a little more of the same thing, but it has done no particular good for people living in the inner areas. Far from finding cures for old ills, the partnership appears to have done little more than partly refill some of the local authority coffers for special needs—improvement of council housing, rehabilitation of private homes, grants for mortgages and loans and grants for voluntary work.

    Liverpool found its £30 million housing budget increased to £40 million—the level of some years ago—through the partnership. We then had the extraordinary situation of the director of housing passing a confidential note, which everyone now knows about, telling the local authority that he cannot spend £40 million because he does not have the machinery to cope with and process all the applications which will result from the increased cash and saying that, unless he is given more staff and resources or the rules and regulations are changed, he will have to hand back £3 million to £5 million this year. That has happened in an area where the housing is probably the worst in the country.

    There is no point in topping up a fund which has dropped unless it is accompanied by all the paraphernalia and bureaucracy that is needed to run the fund or unless the rules are changed. The partnership will not do that. It insists on playing according to the rules as they ​ have been, rather than having new approaches and innovations.

    I am told that similar problems exist in other spending departments where an injection of funds, far from helping to solve problems, is merely creating new problems within the departments. If the partnership were just this it would be an extremely sick joke, because the new machinery would be fouling up existing mechanisms which were working before the partnership came along. However, I suggest that there is a far more sinister move behind the partnership.

    One may ask whether this is the first step of the Government to establish a sort of regional supremo for the metropolitan areas which the Government feel have failed to rejuvenate their urban areas. Is there to be a sort of local dictator from London to push, chivy and ultimately control the local authorities in the area? Let me explain why I think that this is happening.

    In some ways the Government have lost faith in the Liverpool city council as well as the Mersey county council. They consider those local authorities to be without ideas, but that is not true. The Liverpool city council is already building houses for sale, and the county council has a number of exciting and interesting projects to revive the economy of Merseyside. However, such initiatives are seemingly discouraged because of the partnership’s insistence that every new project that emanates from the city council or county council must come under the partnership scheme.

    There is already talk about setting up sub-committees of the partnership so that the local authorities are subordinated to this new tier of government. Is the partnership to become a new tier of government? Has it been subtly erected above the local authorities so that the Minister has control of what goes on at that level? Can we expect this to be the first stage of manoeuvring in regional control and regional government? Is that what the partnership is all about? If the partnership means a new approach and a new initiative, where are they’? All that we have seen is a little more of the old thing served up in new guises.

    There is talk of the urban aid programme. It is the upgraded 1978 model of the 1968 scheme. It has broader terms of reference and an increased amount of public money. No one has ever seen the urban aid programme tackling our major cities’ problems. On the contrary, it has helped to bring forward some of the projects that are already in the pipeline that the city council would have undertaken in any event. It has helped to do that a little earlier. For example, there is a sports complex in Edinburgh Street, Liverpool. It is stuck in a park in the middle of nowhere. The council has been trying to bring it forward for many years. As a result of the urban aid programme it has managed to start building it now. The complex is virtually completed. However, it will do nothing to solve unemployment, housing or the provision of jobs in the inner area.

    One wonders whether the Government would be better to pay off Liverpool’s housing debt for a few years—it is now running at £28 million a year—instead of all this partnership nonsense. If they paid off the housing debt for two or three years, that would allow the council to spend its own money as it thought best.

    One of the problems of urban aid is that it distorts the existing priority lists of the local authority by pushing forward schemes in which the Government are particularly interested, thus distorting the picture locally.

    I should like to ask the Minister, if he ever turns up in the Chamber, one or two further questions. Does he expect to hear proposals from one partner in the partnership in areas of concern which are the responsibility of another partner in the partnership? Is it the Government’s belief that the needs of the inner cities can be met merely by taking existing local authority services and Government functions and trying to extend their boundaries? Surely the Home Office community development project showed the limitations of neighbourhood-based experiments finding new ways of meeting the needs of those living in areas of high social deprivation.

    If the Government are not planning to make the partnership a vehicle for new solutions and the creation of change, the cities have been hoodwinked, as well as the people living in them. All that we are ​ witnessing is another project in the same mould that will deceive and distort. It will do nothing to solve the real problems. If the sum result of the White Paper is another, more elaborate talking shop, dereliction and despair in our industrial towns will continue and worsen.

    It may be that the Government have already concluded that there are no solutions to the ailing cities. If so, why erect such an elaborate fa çade to conceal the truth, undermine local authority powers and block up the existing machinery? I cannot believe that the Government are that stupid. It must be part of a greater strategy to bring the cities under Government control with Whitehall and the Minister in a new tier of government on top and in charge.

  • John Stokes – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Stokes, the then Conservative MP for Halesowen and Stourbridge, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    It seems quite a long time now since I heard the Gracious Speech read over six hours ago. Apart from the excellent speech of the leader of my party, my main recollection of all the other speeches I have heard is of their length. I hope that in my case I can speak to the point and not perhaps at such excessive length.

    I found it hard to reconcile the complacent tone of the Gracious Speech with the state of affairs in the country today. I wish to speak with extreme seriousness for a few moments, quite broadly, on the present state of our country. There was no recognition in the Gracious Speech that the nation is demoralised and that our proud national spirit is to some extent diminished. Nor have the Government brought forward any new measures to fulfil their fundamental duty to defend the realm and maintain law and order in our land.

    The second paragraph of the Gracious Speech reads:

    “My Government will continue to safeguard the nation’s security and make a full contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance”.

    I do not believe that the Government are continuing to safeguard the nation’s security to anything like the extent that they should, nor do I believe that they are making “a full contribution” to NATO. We know this from the complaints that we have heard from Dr. Luns and others.

    Some weeks ago I was with our forces in Germany. As everyone knows, they are short of almost every kind of equipment, notably tanks and aircraft, but also vehicles. Many of those which they have are older than the men who drive them. The forces are also short of arms, ammunition and petrol for exercises and manoeuvres. Even more disgraceful, we found that in many units the soldiers were short of certain mundane articles such as boots, socks, and jerseys.

    The troops feel that they are to some extent neglected, and I am afraid that this is true. All ranks have lost faith in the Government. That is a deeply serious matter. They have no confidence that they will be paid properly. I have never come across such bitterness, not only among the serving men but among their wives. Yet now we hear that there is to be yet another defence review and that still more cuts in our defences are envisaged.

    Our forces may soon be reduced to the size of those of a small country such as Denmark or Belgium. In spite of these serious deficiencies, I am glad to say that I found the morale of our troops high. I am certain that this is due to the inspired leadership of the officers, warrant officers ​ and NCOs—leadership which, in my view, is far above that which we see in all walks of civilian life.

    Turning to the situation at home, the Gracious Speech says on the second page:

    “My Government will seek to ensure that respect for the law is maintained, and will give full support to strengthening the Police Service.”

    Yet, as we all know, there is probably more violence now in this country than at any time since the fearful disturbances of the Middle Ages.

    Violent crime, including the most distressing crime of rape, continually increases. Many people in my constituency—and I know that this is general throughout many towns in England—are fearful of leaving their homes at night.

    Protection by the police of private property against burglary or theft has almost broken down, and respect for authority and for the law has woefully diminished. There is general lack of discipline in the community. Vandalism and thuggery continue in many of our towns. The situation in our prisons is clearly dangerous and getting out of hand. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary does nothing. He hardly even wrings his hands. I doubt whether he could keep order in a nursery.

    On the economic scene, we observe a Government presided over by a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who have seen both prices and unemployment double since 1974. If anyone had prophesied that situation in 1974, he would have been considered a dangerous lunatic. But I believe that there will be no escaping these trends for the nation as long as this Government remain in office.

    Production and productivity are still appallingly low, and unless the situation is improved rapidly there is nothing to prevent the nation from becoming the poorest in Europe. I have recently been in France and Germany. As more and more people now realise, they are increasingly drawing ahead of us in prosperity. One can see it in many ways. When one returns to this country, one’s first feeling is “My goodness, what a poor, shabby nation we have become,” starting at our railway stations, getting into our dirty trains and seeing our dirty streets in London or ​ Birmingham or many of our big towns. If we cannot even keep our trains and streets and public places clean, there is clearly a decline of very serious proportions.

    The conduct of foreign affairs is, after defence and law and order, one of the most important functions of government. As the House knows, I am a student and lover of English history. I am sorry to say so, but I believe that under our present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the nation has reached its lowest point in esteem in many centuries. The Government seem to have ceased to believe in us and in our nation. Yet, if we do not stand up for ourselves, no one else—neither the EEC nor any other nation, and certainly not the United Nations—will stand up for us. What strikes one so forcefully in France is that every Frenchman puts France first, second and third on the list. Do we really think that our Government have the same feeling towards our beloved country?

    In Rhodesia, where I was a few weeks ago, we have the extraordinary and, I believe, almost unprecedented spectacle of our Foreign Office supporting terrorists who have been trained by the Cubans and armed by the Russians. These are the people who are being backed by our Government, particularly by our Foreign Secretary, against the interim Government of Rhodesia composed of blacks and whites. No doubt there are reasons of State for that. No doubt it is not just wishy-washy sentimentality. No doubt this is meant to placate America, which has always hated the British Empire, has never had the slightest idea of how to handle black people, and which certainly can teach us nothing. It may also be an attempt to placate Nigeria and some of the black countries in Africa. But if we do not respect ourselves as a nation, and look after our own people in Rhodesia, no black nation and no black people will have any respect whatever for us.

    I therefore very much hope that next week, when these grave matters come before this Chamber, my party will have the courage of its convictions, above all, listen increasingly to what most people in England are saying and vote determinedly against the continuation of sanctions.

    Finally, we see in education an attempt to devalue examinations and to water ​ down everything of merit. Under this Government, the country is rapidly losing its way, its sense of direction and its sense of purpose. If this goes on, I believe that we shall end up as a sort of second rate Socialist State with lower and lower standards and, of course, less and less freedom. The Government seem quite unaware of the grave deterioration which has taken place, certainly since 1974 and probably earlier. The sooner we have a General Election, the better.

    I noticed a poll in the West Midlands today—and I have some interest in that part of the country—which put my party 18 per cent. ahead. I am not surprised. That is a feeling which I have had all along. I am certain that if an election were held in the next few weeks, we should, at least in England, gain a substantial majority, and then the task of national recovery will have to begin.

  • Donald Anderson – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Donald Anderson, the then Labour MP for East Swansea, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) made a courageous speech in respect of incomes policy. I hope to return to that subject later. However, I am not wholly with the hon. Member in his suggestion that the Conservative Opposition have been helpful, certainly since January of this year, when the Leader of the Opposition, in her speech in Glasgow, said that she saw no case for incomes policy. As one approached a General Election, the impression was given to trade union bargainers that the Conservatives were not in favour of incomes policy and were in favour of so-called free collective bargaining, and, therefore, that all the constraints were off.

    I disagree with the hon. Member in his analysis of the reason for the voting intentions of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. He argued that there might have been a referendum in September had the Government been in earnest about holding such a referendum speedily. The problem there, of course, was the 40 per cent. hurdle and the wish of the Government and, indeed, of the proponents of devolution, as a result of that hurdle, to have as up-to-date a register as possible. Hence the pledge given today and earlier by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the referendums would be held as soon as practicable after the coming into force of the new register.

    However, as far as I can divine, it is not a matter of the attitude of the nationalist parties, because they wish to have a sympathetic Government in power, using official machinery in favour of devolution at the time of the referendums, that the nationalist parties are unlikely to give the Conservative Party support when it comes to the Division at the end of the debate on the Loyal Address. Surely it is rather that they positively see benefits for their own countries in the policies that are being pursued by the present Government and, negatively, following the attack on public expenditure, which generates so many of the jobs in Wales and Scotland, in the event of the advent of a Conservative Government which is pledged to reduce that public expenditure, which would put in question much of the regional employment machinery which has been built up painstakingly by the present Government over its years in office, they see positive disadvantages for their countries under a Conservative Government, particularly under the Conservative Party’s present leadership. For reasons of that sort, they have no interest in seeing the present Government replaced by a Conservative Government.

    As regards the Queen’s Speech in general, certainly my own initial reaction and the reaction of many colleagues was that it was much meatier than we had expected. In the last Session of Parliament, by having the three constitutional measures which took up such a large part of the time available for Government measures, almost all the other good but not necessary measures were swept off the table—the merchant shipping Bill and so on. Now there is time available for considering such important measures.

    Indeed, the Queen’s Speech is a programme for a Session. It is a programme that will keep Parliament very busy over that Session. Looking at the amount of work involved in the Queen’s Speech, there is no suspicion that my right hon. Friend or any of his colleagues think that they will not be in Government come Thursday week after the Division. They have every reason to be confident that they can safely plan for a very fruitful and useful Session. It is not an electioneering Queen’s Speech. It is one that is well balanced, and I think that it will find support from everyone save those on the Conservative Benches.

    What is clear is that much of the areas of debate with which we shall be dealing during this Session are not included in the Queen’s Speech, partly perhaps, looking internally at the moment, ​ because reform of this place is properly considered to be a matter for the House itself. More importantly, looking at the fundamental economic issues, one thinks of the European monetary system, which will cause agonising debates within my party. That is not included in the Queen’s Speech, and I hope that the Government, as they have done to some extent today, will make available as much of the background material as possible so that Back-Bench Members can come to a reasonable appraisal of what is at stake in the EMS proposal.

    Secondly, there is pay policy and the whole course of our economic progress, with some indications now, with investment intentions much more favourable, with the degree of growth in the economy and with sterling buoyant, that the Government’s strategy is paying off. The big question mark relates to pay policy, and here I follow the view of the hon. Member for Leek. I hope that as a result of the experience of 1975 and 1976 the country will realise that expectations are such, that basic human nature is such, that the Government must have a global figure which they think appropriate beyond which incomes cannot rise if we are to have an overall sensible economic policy.

    If—this is the central dilemma—there are limits within which the Government’s remit runs, which we see illustrated dramatically in the Ford strike, there could be difficulties if those limits are exceeded. If Ford settles at 15 per cent. or more, that will be held as a pattern not only for the motor sector but for other sectors, and if overall settlements within the private sector are in excess of 10 per cent. how can the Government thereafter seek to hold the line in the public sector, where almost 30 per cent. of the total work force is employed? What sort of argument can the Government make not only to civil servants but to those in the nationalised industries if the barrier is broken so dramatically by Ford?

    Those who argue against an incomes policy yet are in favour of special consideration for the low paid are living in a moonshine world and refusing honestly to face the issues. One sees the interaction between the public and private sectors in, for example, the employment of computer experts within the Government service, where already there has been a substantial loss of computer specialists. If the Government maintain their pay policy only within the public sector, one can foresee a loss from that sector of scarce skills and a general deterioration in the quality of work.

    Any Government, of whatever political colour, must have an aggregate sum which they think is appropriate globally. They must also have some pay policy for their own employees, if only because of the interaction between the public and private sectors. It is wholly unrealistic, and indeed dishonest, to pretend that pure free collective bargaining can exist in our society today, with the expectations which can be raised thereby. Here I am at one with the hon. Member for Leek, who has consistently and courageously put forward his own views on this matter. Both of us are mightily removed from his Front Bench, which speaks with such a multitude of voices on this subject, so misleadingly and damagingly.

    My only regret is that, coming to the fourth year of pay policy, and perhaps inevitably because of the approach of a General Election, the opportunity was not taken to seek to agree on some longer-term strategy on pay and incomes generally on the lines of, say, the Scandinavian model. That opportunity was avoided, I believe, to the cost of this country.

    Having touched on pay policy and EMS, the issues not in the Queen’s Speech, I shall take up briefly what was said by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and deal with Wales. This Queen’s Speech has properly been labelled a Welsh Queen’s Speech, with the priority given to fighting unemployment and the extra resources to be made available to the Welsh Development Agency. The WDA, under its current level of expenditure—in the view of many of us, perhaps over-cautious so far—will bump up against the ceiling over the next financial year, so there was need for extra resources in any event. It is touching to see the present unanimity about the WDA, since I could remind Opposition Members, perhaps to their embarrassment, that as one they voted against it when the proposal came before the House. Now, in the light of experience, they are happily converted to its usefulness as a tool of economic regeneration.

    We welcome also the proposal about bilingual education, which is a particularly sensitive and thorny problem in the English-speaking areas of Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan, and the formula so far devised to help the slate quarry men of North Wales.

    Although I come from the other side of the mountains, in South Wales, I know that there is tremendous sympathy among our people for the plight of those quarry men. An extra stride has been taken in the Government’s recognition of their special position. We look forward over the coming Session to a formula which will meet their real human need—something to which the Labour Government are pledged. We set up a commission under the then Sir Elwyn Jones to produce a report. This is now being pushed speedily through the Department of Employment in co-operation with the Welsh Office—and not as a result of any nationalist pressure. The doors, both of bilingual education and of a solution for the slate quarry men, have already been opened by pressure from Labour Members.

    I welcome the cohesion within the Queen’s Speech of the themes of participation in industry, to give workers greater knowledge of company finances, and also of housing. The Minister for Housing and Construction has played an important personal role in drafting the tenants’ charter. The pledge on this matter that we made in our 1974 election manifesto has taken too long to be realised, but at least the package of tenants’ rights will be enforced by legislation to ensure that the practices of the best local authorities are made the statutory basis for all local authorities.

    Hopefully, this will also give greater discretion to tenants in repairing, painting and decorating their own homes, so that they can avoid the anonymous sameness which is too evident in our council estates. Perhaps this tenants’ charter and the new housing proposals will be the most significant achievement of the coming legislation.

    I welcome, too, the theme of the protection of individuals—not only the consumerism which informs a number of the proposals but also the fact that the Government are taking up the abortive ​ Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) to regulate the conduct of estate agents—a much-needed measure for the protection of individuals.

    I am pleased that, in relation to England, the Government have listened to the proud cities such as Bristol and Norwich which have asked for a recasting in their favour of powers under the 1972 Local Government Act. I only regret that, because of the difficulty created by the Wales Act, there is no such proposal in respect of similarly proud and ancient cities, such as Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, in South Wales. We shall be left behind because of section 12 of the Wales Act, which leaves in the air local government reorganisation, leaving it dependent on the whim of a partisan Assembly that is unlikely to come into being. We shall waste several years when, had we been in the same position as England, these much-sought-after organic changes could have been made.

    I should now like to mention one or two matters that were omitted from the Gracious Speech. I regret that there was no mention of road safety, although a conference on the subject was convened in June this year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Many of those who attended that conference and took part will now be asking themselves why they bothered. The Blennerhassett report on drinking and driving has been gathering dust on the Department’s shelves. We have clear evidence of the way in which seat belt legislation could save lives. We know that the effect of the 1967 breathalyser Act is now wearing thin. I very much regret that, particularly after the conference in June, the Government could not find time in the coming legislative session for road safety legislation, whether on Blennerhassett or on seat belts.

    Perhaps I should apologise for my next point, because it is to a large extent a constituency matter. I refer to the omission of any mention of a subject that has been discussed freely in the press over past weeks—the Government’s decision to abolish the vehicle excise duty in favour of an increased tax on petrol. There are respectable energy conservation and other arguments for that. Until now the Treasury has maintained that—however ​ attractive the energy conservation arguments for penalising the user—the balance of payments arguments and the arguments about the effect on our own motor industry as people switched to lower powered vehicles were decisive. In my view, those arguments are still as strong as ever they were.

    There is also the question of the effect on rural areas, where earnings are normally less and where people are likely to be penalised by a switch that would mean that anyone motoring more than 7,500 miles a year was likely to lose. There is also the matter of the lack of consultation with the unions involved.

    I think that the Government have made a mistake. Even if on overall national grounds it is decided to make the switch to a petrol tax from the vehicle excise duty—and I readily concede that there are powerful arguments in favour of that—I await the Government’s proposals in regard to the employment effects in an area of South Wales that has suffered, and still suffers, from very high levels of unemployment, and where the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Morriston has made a major impact, particularly on female employment. If it is considered that there are overwhelming national reasons for making the change, I hope that the Government will look very carefully at the local employment effect.

    I have spoken of the omissions—road safety and the question of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre. That having been said, I think that this Gracious Speech is well balanced. It will certainly be very much welcomed in Wales. It will be very much welcomed by people of good will who see that overall our economic picture is improving, who see a firm, steady hand in the Government now, and who will welcome the very useful changes that we shall enact over this full legislative Session.

  • David Knox – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Knox, the then Conservative MP for Leek, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    I agree with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). As we have come to expect from him, he made a reasonable, sensible and moderate speech. My hon. Friend always makes a real contribution to sensible debate in the House.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak at such an early stage in a parliamentary Session which might not last long. Indeed, it might be over within a fortnight. I confess that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West, I am rather sorry that the House has reassembled without hon. Members having the opportunity to face the electorate. It is pleasant to see some colleagues here who did not expect to return after the Summer Recess. I am referring to those right hon. and hon. Members who do not intend to take part in the next General Election rather than those on the Labour Benches who represent marginal constituencies. Although it is pleasant to see those who were to have retired, I think it was a great mistake not to have a General Election last month. I do not say that in a particularly partisan spirit.
    The Government do not have a majority in the House. They do not have a permanent arrangement with one of the minority parties to give them a majority. In such circumstances, the Government can only limp along from day to day, not knowing whether they will be in office a few clays later. Such uncertainty cannot be good for the country.

    No one knows where he stands. Decisions by employers and trade unionists will be more difficult. Urgent decisions will be deferred because no one will be sure about the future political environment. The inevitable continuous electioneering atmosphere will have an adverse effect on the quality of government. All that can only be damaging to the country. It would have been much better for us to have had an election last month. The uncertainty would have been removed. Everyone would have known which party was to be in power over the next few years. The people would have had a much better idea of the future political environment. The quality of decisions within and outside Government would have been better, and the new Government would have been able to get on with the job of governing the country.

    But, although we did not have a General Election last month, we could well have one later this month or next month, and it is because I believe that the present uncertainty is damaging to the country that I hope the Government will lose the vote at the end of the debate and so be forced to an immediate General Election. I hope that the minority parties will put the country before party and join my party in voting the Government down.

    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) made a very able speech this afternoon, but she was vague about the SNP’s intentions at the end of the debate. She dragged in a large number of issues, but the essence of the decision by the nationalists must hinge on devolution. The reference by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) to the advertisement which the nationalists have put in Scottish newspapers indicated the truth of that.

    Of course, there must be a temptation for the nationalist parties to argue that they will sustain the Government in office either positively or by abstention until the devolution referendums have taken place. From their point of view, that is a superficially attractive argument. I believe that it is important that these two referendums should take place quickly, because the sooner the uncertainty about the future government of Scotland and Wales has been resolved, the better it will be for the United Kingdom as a whole and the individual countries within it.

    The importance and urgency of early referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution cannot be said to be an argument for sustaining the Government in power. I say that, first, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has made clear, a Conservative Government would hold the referendums on 22nd March next year, and that is very similar to the Prime Minister’s pledge this afternoon. No one who knows my right hon. Friend would ever believe that he would not fulfil that promise.

    I say it, secondly, because there is no reason for sustaining the Government in power. If they had wanted to hold the referendums quickly, they could have ​ done so in September and October, as some of us advised in the summer. Presumably they did not do so because they wanted to exercise some leverage on the nationalist parties over the next few months.

    The nationalists may, of course, argue that a Labour Government will campaign for a “yes” vote whereas a Tory Administration would campaign for “no”. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East made quite a bit of that argument. No doubt the nationalists would argue that the attitude of the Government of the day is an important influence on the outcome of a referendum. I doubt that. If anything, I should have thought that Government support for one side or the other could well be counter-productive. I do not get the impression that Governments of any particular party are particularly popular or influential on the views of the people. But, in any event, it seems clear to me that there will be an emphatic “yes” vote in Scotland for devolution. The argument is therefore not valid when applied to Scottish devolution. I know much less about Wales and I therefore refrain from forecasting the outcome of the referendum in that country.

    It seems clear to me therefore that there is no great advantage for the nationalists in their sustaining the Government in office. There is the possible disadvantage, if they do so, that their right-of-centre voters will desert them at the next General Election in fairly large numbers. I need scarcely remind members of the SNP, holding as they do constituencies such as Galloway, South Angus and Perth and East Perthshire, how much they have to lose if they back the Government. It must therefore be in their interests to vote with the Conservatives at the end of the debate.

    In the past few weeks there has been a great debate in the country about incomes policy. I welcome that debate not least because it is taking place within political parties as well as between them. It is right that such a debate should take place. Whether we have an incomes policy is an important economic issue, but it is as well to remember—and the media would do well to bear this in mind—that it is by no means the only economic issue that faces the country. And it is perfectly possible to be a loyal member of the Labour or Conservative Party and yet not necessarily to be in full agreement with the current official attitude of either party to incomes policy.

    I hope that the debate on incomes policy will continue with greater emphasis placed on the issue and less emphasis applied to the personalities. I have been convinced for some considerable time that, in the imperfect conditions which obtain it this country, an incomes policy is an essential tool of economic management, both as a means of limiting inflation and as a means of maintaining a higher level of employment than would otherwise exist.

    That is not to say that I would not prefer genuine free collective bargaining, but frankly that is not an option. In practice, free collective bargaining in this country is neither “free” nor “bargaining”. Quite simply, it is the exercise of monopoly power. Monopoly power, wherever it appears, is bad and must be restrained. When monopoly power is exercised in the labour market, an incomes policy is probably the best means of restraining some of its excesses.

    Of course, incomes policies have defects, but these pale into insignificance compared with the defects of so-called free collective bargaining. So-called free collective bargaining between 1969 and 1972 resulted in the inflation and unemployment of the early 1970s. So-called free collective bargaining in 1974 and 1975 led in the years immediately following to the hyper-inflation and the excessive unemployment of that time. So bad were the consequences of that period of free collective bargaining that we are still suffering from both the inflation and the unemployment that arose.

    No one would claim that any incomes policy is perfect, nor that any incomes policy in the future is likely to be perfect either. Nor would the strongest supporters of incomes policies claim that such policies in themselves were sufficient.

    But there is no doubt that the incomes policy of the last Tory Government was highly successful in restraining domestically generated inflation in 1973 at a time when imported inflation in the form of much higher commodity prices was playing havoc with the general level of prices in this country.

    There is no doubt that the present Government’s incomes policy has played a significant part in reducing inflation from 26 per cent. to 8½ per cent. over the last three years. That is why it has had my general support. That is not to condone the irresponsibility of the Government when they allowed inflation to escalate to 26 per cent. in the first 16 months of their period of office. It is only to recognise that when they started to do something more sensible it was in the national interest that they should be given general support.

    The Government have now suggested that incomes increases in the next 12 months should not exceed 5 per cent. I think that that policy can contribute to a further reduction in inflation and to the avoidance of even higher unemployment than we now have. It consequently deserves support. However, the Government’s policy seems somewhat rigid and inflexible, but it is the only incomes policy we have, and even with its defects it is better than no incomes policy. It should, therefore, be supported by all those who have the national interest at heart, and that means by all Conservatives.

    Let me clarify one point. Even though I think that the present pay policy is inflexible, I do not doubt for one moment that 5 per cent. is right as a global amount. Therefore, if one is to have a more flexible approach, that must mean that some would get a little more than 5 per cent. and some a little less. It does not and should not mean that everyone should get 5 per cent., some rather more and most people far more—otherwise, all that will happen will be an inevitable return to the hyper-inflation from which we are still in the process of escaping.

    If one looks at the last few years and at the period between 1972 and 1974, when the Tory Government’s incomes policy was in being, one finds that there is one very considerable difference. I refer, of course, to the behaviour of the Opposition of the day. During the period of the Tory Government’s incomes policy, the then Labour Opposition lost no opportunity to attack it and to try to undermine it. From the Prime Minister downwards, members of the Labour Party gave every encouragement to people to defeat the then Government’s policy, even though that policy was very much more generous than the incomes policy of the present Labour Government.

    Since the Labour Government introduced their incomes policy in 1975, the present Conservative Opposition have behaved responsibly. No attempt has been made to undermine the Government’s policy. No encouragement has been given to people to try to smash it. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said at the Conservative Party conference at Brighton, speaking about the Prime Minister:

    “Let me put his mind at rest. We are not going to follow in his footsteps. We will not accuse him of ‘union bashing’. We will not support a strike in breach of an agreement. We will not act irresponsibly—and he knows it.”

    The Conservative attitude to the Labour Government’s incomes policy has been a model of responsible opposition, and I hope that the new Labour Opposition will copy it after the next General Election.

    I should like very briefly to express regret about two omissions from the Gracious Speech. First, there is no mention of proposals to implement the Erroll Report on liquor licensing. It is now six years since the committee reported. Ever since, the Home Office has dithered on the issue and done nothing at all. In the meantime, the Clayson report on Scottish licensing laws, which was published after Erroll, in August 1973, was implemented in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.

    There is considerable evasion of the licensing laws in this country. There is great public concern about them because they are old fashioned and reactionary. If the Government wanted to use the time in this Session to effect a useful and helpful social reform, I cannot see why at long last the Home Office could not have come around to producing a Bill to deal with this problem.

    The second omission, which I regret very much, is the Government’s failure to implement the recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference in the 1970–74 Parliament to lower the age at which people can stand for Parliament. It is nine years since the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18. The Speaker’s Conference in the 1970–74 Parliament recommended that the age at which people could stand for Parliament should also be ​ reduced from 21 to 18. The current situation is anomalous. It seems to me regrettable that the Government do not propose to take the opportunity to implement that recommendation of that Speaker’s Conference as well as the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference in the current Parliament.

    We do not have a lot of legislation for the Session. It would seem to me not unreasonable to ask the Government to reconsider both these points. We have plenty of spare time. Let us have Bills on both of them and so effect two very useful reforms.

  • Anthony Meyer – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Meyer, the then Conservative MP for West Flint, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) that, if a Labour Government were to be returned with a large majority, the policies about which we heard from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would feature in their programme rather than those currently being defended by the Prime Minister. Indeed, I would go further and say that it would be a question not merely of the size of the majority which would drive them that way, but more the expectation of four or more years of power. In other words, at the beginning rather than at the end of a Parliament they would show themselves more ready to embark on Socialist measures.

    I can see only one consolation in the postponement of the election which the people of this country so manifestly wanted—an election which I am certain, whatever the opinion polls may say, would have resulted in a decisive Conservative victory—and that is the elegant, charming and witty speech made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and ​ the fact that we shall have him with us for the duration of this Parliament.

    If I wanted to find in the Queen’s Speech a convincing reason why the postponement of the election was so disastrous, I should find it primarily in the statement that

    “legislation will be introduced to improve arrangements for compensation of workers on short-time, and to reduce redundancies at times of high unemployment by encouraging the alternative of short-time working.”

    I am sure that that will be an extremely popular proposal. It is a way of masking the unemployment which, despite temporary improvements, is gaining on us apace. Employers’ contributions to national insurance are to be increased to subsidise short-time working. It seems a classic example of the kind of short term measure that we get in a pre-election period from a Government who are worried about their prospects—a measure which certainly will be popular and will equally certainly contribute in the long term to a worsening of unemployment because it will contribute markedly to a worsening of our competitive ability. As an operation, it is like filling in the cracks in the facade by digging away stones from the foundations. I believe that the consequences of this operation, as with other short term cosmetic operations for concealing unemployment, will prove to be disastrous in terms of future unemployment.

    I turn briefly to those items in the Gracious Speech which concern the Principality as I am the first Welsh Conservative Member to speak to the Address. It seems from the Queen’s Speech that the Government have paid quite a high price to secure those three vital Plaid Cymru votes. Having listened to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and the impossibly high price that she was putting on the Scottish National Party’s support to either side of the House which cared to bid for it, I understand why the Government settled for the slightly softer option of buying the votes of Plaid Cymru.

    The proposals in the Queen’s Speech for improved compensation arrangements for the victims of pneumoconiosis and silicosis are welcome, but I hope that no one will run away with the idea that these are the result of a sustained campaign by Plaid Cymru. Its part in this ​ matter reminds me of the fly on the coach wheel which, as the four great shire horses dragged the coach to the top of the hill, triumphantly exclaimed “You would never have got there without my help.” There has been an all-party effort to secure these improvements. I am sure that any Government who found themselves in a position to improve these compensation arrangements would have done so. The fact that this Government have done it at this time indicates that they are anxious to secure the votes of Plaid Cymru. I hope that they are also converted to the need for these improvements.

    There is one other item possibly affecting Wales on which I should like to touch. I note with curiosity that the Government have renewed their pledge or reaffirmed their commitment to the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry in both England and Wales. I think that very early on we should have an assurance that that does not mean that MANWEB, the company which provides electricity to North Wales and Merseyside, is to be split into separate Welsh and English elements. All who know about such matters know that the cost of supplying consumers in North Wales is much higher than the cost of supplying consumers in Merseyside where the population is greater. A split of MANWEB can result only in higher electricity tariffs for people in North Wales.

    I hope that we shall have an early assurance on this matter. If we do not, there will be considerable alarm and despondency at the prospect of still further increases in electricity tariffs which are already bearing heavily on certain consumers, particularly old people and those who are unfortunate enough to have electric heating in their homes.

    I shall deal briefly with two omissions from the Gracious Speech. The first involves a prosaic matter, but it causes considerable and increasing concern to certain people in my constituency. I had hoped to find some reference in the speech to the necessity of amending the Shops Act 1950. I had hoped particularly for an amendment to Part IV of that Act which deals with Sunday opening. We are in an inextricable mess over the law on Sunday opening. This is imposing an intolerable duty on local authorities, particularly in areas which can claim to be resorts. They have the right to permit​ opening on 18 Sundays a year. That figure is not adequate because of the short seasons which affect many holiday resorts. The law imposes upon local authorities the intolerable task of forbidding shops from doing something which they and the public want to do and which is in the interests of all but which is contrary to the law. Local authorities suffer great unpopularity because they must carry out the law. The situation is not their fault. It is time that the law was changed.

    Local authorities are unable to do much to control the fly-by-night operators who set up Sunday markets. These are often in unsuitable areas and they cause traffic congestion and dirt. There are provisions to forbid this activity but they are inadequate. The delays and complications involved in enforcing the law make it virtually impossible to catch the fly-by-night trader. If the laws are enforceable, they are enforceable only against respectable stall operators whom no one wishes to harass. Local authorities need greater powers of discretion both to permit Sunday opening for respectable traders and to prevent the installation of undesirable types of Sunday market.

    I shall make my point briefly. There is one omission from the Queen’s Speech which grieves me. It concerns a matter which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. I am grieved about the omission of any arrangements for improving the process of consultation of trade union members on the election of their officers and the decision to take industrial action.

    I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend give a pledge that a Conservative Government would make provision for a postal ballot to be conducted at public expense for major trade union decisions. I hope that that principle will be extended to include the provision for a secret ballot—not necessarily a postal ballot—on every major decision affecting industrial action. I confess that I do not understand the hostility which this proposal arouses on the Government side of the House.

    I am sorry that the Lord President is no longer in the Chamber I have read of the indignation which he summoned up when he commented on the difficulties which were put in the way of ​ the introduction of a secret ballot for parliamentary and other elections when local land or mill owners were able to intimidate those employees who voted in a way which was unacceptable to the boss. The secret ballot is the most elementary requirement of democracy. No system can call itself democratic if it does not, as a matter of course, include provision for a secret ballot.

    This matter is of particular concern to my constituency. In my constituency a number of industrial disputes are being fomented and maintained which were possibly originally caused by direct intimidation by militant elements which do not scruple to use the most ruthless methods to oblige their fellow workers to come out on strike and remain on strike. The consequence is that North Wales, part of which I have the honour to represent, which once boasted that it had the finest labour relations in the country, can no longer make such a boast because a large number of major building projects are being deliberately sabotaged by professional agitators using the art of intimidation.

    A secret ballot for all such decisions would destroy the ability of such agitators to intimidate fellow workers. To argue that a secret ballot among the miners and the railwaymen confirmed a decision to strike is not the answer. In those cases the majority genuinely wanted to take industrial action. In such cases industrial action is justified. But in too many cases the militant minority, using the most thuggish of methods, intimidate their fellow workers into going on strike when that is the last thing that the workers wish to do.

    No one suggests that a secret ballot should be enforced on those who do not wish to vote. The objective can be achieved by providing that unless a decision is taken by secret ballot the decision loses the special protection and immunities which are provided by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. The special advantages conferred on industrial procedures should be removed unless a decision has been validated by a secret ballot.

    There are few things to which I look forward more in the programme of the incoming Conservative Government than the carrying out of that pledge which my right hon. Friend repeated this afternoon.

  • Margaret Ewing – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Ewing, the then SNP MP for East Dunbartonshire, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    Since the ministerial broadcast of Thursday 7th September, there have been two areas of great speculation. One has been about the contents of the Queen’s Speech. At least that area of speculation is ended. The second area of speculation is how the Scottish National Party will cast its votes next week.

    It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is not present because I wish to make it clear at the outset that there has never been any question of a pact between the SNP and the Labour Government. The idea is more abhorrent to us than it is to him. The same would be true with a Conservative Government. We regard both the Labour and Conservative Parties as the same because they are both unionist parties wishing to maintain the Union of Parliaments which we wish to change in order that Scotland can have a Government of her own. The speculation about a pact arose because of the question of the establishment of a devolved Assembly in Scotland. I shall return to this point later.

    As a group, we in the SNP met today and we have carefully considered the contents of the Gracious Speech. There are many aspects that we welcome—for example, the strengthening of the police service and the steps towards industrial democracy and towards more open government. We particularly welcome the possibility of some work being done on the question of marine pollution, because we in Scotland, with the development of North Sea oil, have seen the particular problems there, and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and for Banff (Mr. Watt) have been active in bringing them to the attention of the House, because there is no doubt that the fishing industry in North-East Scotland has suffered as a result.

    However, it will come as no surprise to many hon. Members to hear that we in the SNP have reservations about the Gracious Speech. Many of those reserva- ​ tions reflect the vagueness of the language, and we shall ask for further clarification of such issues. We shall also want to know about the omissions from the Gracious Speech.

    First, there is the question of land. Again, I am disappointed that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is not present because it seems to me that, having spent his summer having cups of tea with Sir Hugh Fraser and individuals in that magic number of acres—800—in his own territory, he must have forgotten some of his own statements. If the hon. Gentleman really believes that the promises in the Gracious Speech about land reflect in any way his views or those of anyone who wishes to see a radical approach to land ownership in Scotland, he is sadly mistaken, because it would appear that the reference to land legislation concerns only the registration of titles and conveyancing, and that is only a minor aspect of the problem of land use and land ownership in Scotland. It is a significant step forward, but I suggest that its position in the Gracious Speech indicates that it was a bit of an afterthought by the Government and does not reflect the radical reforming zeal that we once expected from the Labour Party.

    Secondly, there is the question of the Scottish Development Agency and the proposed extension of funds to it. Obviously we welcome that. This matter, too, has frequently been pursued by the SNP in the past. But we want to know how quickly the money will be made available, how much is to be allocated, and over what period.

    I come now to the omissions from the Gracious Speech, particularly the obvious one against the background of unemployment in Scotland, that is, the lack of any oil fund commitment by the Government. The Government claim that unemployment is falling, but last month in Scotland, although the United Kingdom trend was downwards, more people were registered as unemployed. We cannot tolerate this situation in the Scottish nation. The Scottish unemployment figures are a condemnation of Westminster’s neglect, and the failure of the Government to take the opportunity of the oil revenues to create special funds whereby employment could be created in Scotland is a sin which will not readily be forgotten by the Scottish people and by future generations ​ of Scots because it goes against all the evidence which has been produced even by Government Departments.

    The Scottish Economic Planning Department itself, in a report from Professor Gaskin and Professor Mackay, stated that the major beneficiary of the North Sea oil revenues would be the London Government, and that the only chance of a general restructuring of the Scottish economy would come from the investment of oil revenues in long-term structural changes. But the Gracious Speech does not reflect that view, which was expressed by a Government Department. There was a possibility that an oil fund would be given, but again the Government have set their face against it. They have set their face against giving us the opportunity as Scots to spend our money—because that money is ours by right—on regenerating the Scottish economy and eradicating many of the social problems to which the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire referred. Sometimes one wonders whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that he belongs to a party which has cut public expenditure in Scotland and which is in many ways responsible for the deprivation, the low pay and the substandard school buildings. The hon. Gentleman made great play of that, but his Government have refused on this occasion to give us the opportunity to solve those problems.

    A second omission is that of any reference to local government reform in Scotland.

    Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

    Would not the hon. Lady agree that the last people who she should want to try to reform local government for Scotland are Members of this House, because the last time they did it they made a complete botch of the whole job? Is not the whole argument for the Assembly that it would be the best body, the most able, the most efficient and the closest to Scotland and that it would do it correctly?

    Mrs. Bain

    My reason for referring to local government at this stage will become clearer when the hon. Gentleman hears what I have to say on the question of the Assembly and devolution in general. As I said, there is an omission of local government reform, yet it is generally agreed throughout the political parties in Scotland that there is a desperate need to ​ reform local government. That has been the most unpopular aspect of the legislation which was brought in by the Conservative Government during the 1970–74 period. We should at least have been given the opportunity to start looking now at possible methods of reform.

    A third omission has already been referred to—the question of housing and the fact that the tenants’ charter will not be extended to Scotland. I find this particularly difficult to understand, because while owner-occupation stands at 55 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole it is only 31 per cent. in Scotland. In other words, 54 per cent. of the housing stock in Scotland is in some form of public ownership. This is what has led to the director of Shelter writing to every Scottish Member of Parliament. We have this very high level of public housing, yet nothing seems to be done to make sure that tenants in Scotland are given a similar deal to tenants south of the border.

    It is made clear in the letter from the director of Shelter—I see the Under-Secretary of State on the Front Bench—

    “We understand from correspondence with the Under Secretary of State responsible for Housing that similar legislation for Scotland is not currently planned, a situation we view with considerable alarm.”

    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)

    I hope that the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of actually reading the letter and not relying on the advice of her vice-chairman—because she is a political animal. The precise wording does not rule out legislation this Session.

    Mrs. Bain

    We are most grateful for that reassurance. We hope that we shall have further details of this explained to the House before the vote is taken next Thursday, because we certainly regard this as a crucial aspect of the Queen’s Speech.

    I now turn to the vexed question of devolution and how it will affect the Scottish National Party’s voting pattern next week. I repeat what I said earlier. We regard the Westminster parties as six of one and half a dozen of the other. As a party, we stand for a fundamental constitutional change, a radical change, which establishes democratic independent government in Scotland. Everyone who joins ​ the Scottish National Party signs a membership card stating that. Nowhere on our membership card does it say “We believe in devolution”. Devolution is the result of the people of Westminster responding to pressure from the people of Scotland.

    We have accepted that we are getting an Assembly which has been granted grudgingly by Westminster. But it is merely a step in the right direction. We saw what happened to the Scotland and Wales Bill and then the Scotland Bill as they made their passage through this place and the other place. We saw more and more powers being taken away. But we are still prepared to accept the Assembly because it is the first internal constitutional change in Britain since 1707. At least that is something of which we can be proud, because it is something which sets us on the road to self-government.

    It is unfortunate that there is no third Lobby in the House of Commons because we have to balance our decision in casting our votes with one party or the other. In coming to that decision, I would make clear that, while the Assembly is a priority for us in the Scottish National Party, it is not the sole priority. That was why I referred to the unemployment situation, funds to the SDA and to Scotland’s housing problems. I hope that Members on the Opposition Front Bench are listening equally carefully. If the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is serious about wanting us to vote with him next week, he and the Shadow Cabinet must present their alternative strategy for the people of Scotland. Throughout this debate on the Queen’s Speech we shall be listening to hear what that strategy is.

    I should like to make specific reference to the Prime Minister’s announcement today that 1st March will be the referendum date. If the Prime Minister seriously believes that that announcement is a bait to make us swallow his hook, he had better think again, because that date has been mooted for a long time. The whole question of March is not something new. It will go down like a dead duck in Scotland because people have anticipated it. The Prime Minister must bear in mind that, even with the passage of the Scotland Bill, if there is the intervention of a General Election, the referendum may not necessarily be held on 1st March. If the opportunity arose between now and March, when he thought that his party was at its best, I for one believe that the Prime Minister might choose that option and go to the country. Where would the referendum be then? We need something more positive—for example, the date of the first elections to the Scottish Assembly.

    We have heard it all before from Westminster Governments. We all know about timetable slippage. The Bill was to be on the statute book by July 1976. The Assembly could have been in operation by mid-1977. Yet here we are in the latter stages of 1978 talking about a referendum in early 1979.

    The question of the 40 per cent. rule could have been looked at more thoroughly by the Government. Are we to have any details on this? I do not really believe that it is beyond the powers of the Privy Council to make some kind of concession in terms of people who are dead but who will be registered as voting “no” and in terms of students who will have double votes or who will cancel each other out. I do not believe that it is beyond collective wisdom to make some kind of allowance for these factors and to allow an earlier referendum.

    We have had no promise from the Government about the kind of campaign they will wage during the referendum. We know that the Conservative Party has said “no”, but the Government have said that they will support the “yes” campaign. If the Government do not have the money to fund the European Assembly elections campaign for their own party, are we on this side of the House seriously expected to believe that money will be allocated to a campaign in which the Labour Party is as equally divided as it is on the question of Europe?

    Mr. Dalyell

    How can the Government support the “yes” campaign when the leader of the “yes” campaign, Lord Kilbrandon, is reported faithfully by the BBC as saying that the break-up of the United Kingdom would be no bad thing? That, rightly or wrongly, is not the policy of my Front Bench.

    Mrs. Bain

    We, of course, endorse the views of Lord Kilbrandon. It is up to the Prime Minister to decide where he wants ​ to stand on that particular issue. We want to know the details of how the Government will campaign in the referendum. What sum of money are they prepared to spend, and what will be the level of their campaign? Are we to get a booklet as we did during the European referendum? We should like to know about these details.

    Mr. Sillars

    Will the hon. Lady give way on this point?

    Mrs. Bain

    Yes, even though the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for very long.

    Mr. Sillars

    I must have been, because the hon. Lady gave way to me earlier. I have been following very carefully the argument which she is putting about the Assembly, the SNP and the Labour Government. Is she aware that in local newspapers throughout the length and breadth of Scotland local associations of her own party are inserting advertisements claiming that members of the Scottish National Party are the people who have achieved the Scottish Assembly?

    Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire)

    Yes.

    Mr. Sillars

    The hon. Lady’s hon. Friend says “yes” and endorses that poster and publicity campaign. If that is correct, is it not the case that if the present Government fall one then has a change of Government which will campaign against the Assembly? Perhaps something else will happen and the Assembly will not arise. Then by the same token the hon. Lady’s party will be responsible for losing the Assembly.

    Mrs. Bain

    While the hon. Gentleman may have changed his opinion since he first wrote “Don’t butcher Scotland’s future”, he has not lost his naive faith in Westminster Governments. I pointed out very carefully the possibility of an intervening General Election which would create a very different situation for the promised date of 1st March for the referendum. I do not have that naive faith in any Westminster Government. I would never take that as bait to get me into any Lobby.

    I turn to the question of the Conservatives’ attitude. In view of the recent results in Scotland, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is the Labour ​ Party’s secret weapon. She has been responsible, not for the three hat tricks of victory, but for the three situations in which the Government were able to hold on to seats which they should never have even contemplated losing.

    There are two basic choices open to us. I ask the Conservatives to clarify before next Thursday where they stand on various issues. For example, where do they stand on the question of the Scottish Development Agency which they opposed when it was set up by Parliament in 1975? Ensuing articles that have been written by members of the Conservative Party have not clarified the party’s intentions towards the agency, which has already been responsible for holding about 10,000 jobs in Scotland. I for one would like to know the Conservative attitude on that.

    We should also like to know the Conservative strategy for creating employment in Scotland. If we are to believe all the public announcements which members of their Front Bench have made on public expenditure, a very worrying situation faces Scotland because of the very large public sector there. We want to know their intentions.

    Finally, the Conservatives are in such a state of confusion over the Scottish Assembly that we would like to know whose views they are endorsing at present. I had the pleasure, as did some other hon. Members, of being on “Clyde Comment” last Friday with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has changed his mind on various occasions about the Scottish constitution. He said that the 40 per cent. minimum requirement was cosmetic and it might be that even if there was not a 40 per cent. majority the Conservative Party in power might just take the majority vote and implement the Assembly. However, when he was challenged on it, he started waffling again and changing his mind.

    Is that official Conservative Party policy? Do the Conservatives want federalism as suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)? He does not like calling it federalism because that makes people think that he is a Liberal. Or do they want a Speaker’s Conference as suggested by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire? What exactly is Conservative ​ policy towards a devolved system of government in Scotland? There must be a clear answer from them in the next few days, because they know the implications for the future.

    One point of speculation has been clarified today—the contents of the Queen’s Speech. We are not clarifying the way in which the SNP votes will be cast because we want definitive replies to the points that we are raising, not from one side but from both sides. We shall want to balance the issues very carefully in reaching our decision.

  • John Lee – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Lee, the then Labour MP for Birmingham Handsworth, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    I am not quite sure what is implied by that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. By a happy coincidence, I followed the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) in the same debate a year ago. I echoed then, as I do now, the sentiments he has expressed with regard to the Falkland Islands. I shall not go over the ground again. The hon. Member has covered it well. He knows the Falkland Islands well and cares very much for them. As I said on the last occasion, I agree with all that he says.

    One comment I might make, in response to what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, concerning my reappearance, is that one happy consequence of the unexpected extension of the life of this Parliament is that one of the few doughty anti-Marketeers who stood firm in this House—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South—will be with us for a while yet. When I have gone, I shall be replaced, I am glad to say, by a person who is equally anti-Market in sentiment. The lady who is to take my place, without question, at the next General Election is of those sentiments. I do not know whether that is the situation in Edinburgh, South. I fear that it will not be.

    Having watched the way in which the number of anti-Marketeers has been pared clown, because arms have been ​ twisted, it is good to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South still here. I know that he will remain as firm on that issue as he has been on the Falkland Islands.

    I turn to other matters. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that it is a little odd, perhaps surprising, that there has not been a reference to prisons in the Gracious Speech. We know, and there is no reason why we should pretend otherwise, that much of the Gracious Speech is determined by the complexities and peculiarities of parliamentary arithmetic. There is nothing wrong in that. If this Parliament should follow the pattern of the Parliament of 1959, which went through to the very end of its life, the Conservatives cannot complain. They took that Parliament to the full legal limit. In this century, two other Parliaments have gone to their complete statutory limit. One went far beyond, because of wartime requirements.

    It is understandable—and I as one of those below the Gangway looking for more Left wing measures have to accept this—that the limitations of parliamentary arithmetic make some of the measures I would wish to see not feasible in this Parliament.

    I refer now to a matter which is not dealt with in the Gracious Speech and which is a concomitant of the question of prisons. There is a campaign being mounted, it seems, by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir David McNee, and supported by a number of other people, which seeks to alter our criminal procedure to the detriment of suspects. I find this disturbing and ironical.

    When we look back over the past 15 years and reflect upon the sensational criminal trials involving the integrity of senior police officers, starting with the Challoner case and going through the fraud squad, the drug squad and, most sensational of all, the porn squad, it ill becomes the Commissioner of Police to mount a campaign which would reduce the rights of accused persons when in police custody. That does not mean that I am entirely satisfied, as a criminal law-year with procedures, or that I do not think that there are certain circumstances ​ in which the criminal law plays into the hands of the professional criminal.

    Indeed, there is room for certain improvement in the criminal law. For example, there is a case to be made for a reduction in the number of inhibitions upon the right of a judge to comment on the silence of an accused person or his refusal to give evidence at a criminal trial, but if we are to change our criminal procedures—and I very much suspect that this will be so since the present Home Secretary is so amenable to his civil servants in so many matters, as I have noticed—the change should form part of a package deal which will provide, among other things, for certain compensatory advantages for suspects. For example, the questioning of suspects might be video-taped. That would act as a protection for the police against false accusations of improper conduct and it would also act as a protection for defendants against oppressive police behaviour, when it occurs.

    That said, may I welcome several items in the Gracious Speech? We have long waited for a measure dealing with public lending right. This has been an initiative mounted by a number of Back Benchers which has been successfully stopped by others. As one who normally does not vote in favour of guillotines, I give the Government the undertaking that if that Bill should find itself being filibustered I shall be in the Government Lobby in favour of guillotining procedures that might be necessary. I would welcome that move. The Government may think that that is unusual for me, but I give them that token of my good will with regard to that measure.

    I welcome, although I shall be more fulsome in my praise when we see the text, the proposed amendments to the Official Secrets Act. If I were to comment on certain proceedings in the courts I should be out of order. Some of us are not unamused by the way in which the Establishment has ended up with egg on its face in a number of proceedings going back for some considerable time. We remember the farcial Official Secrets trial of the editor of the Sunday Telegraph and, indeed, of a Conservative Member, among others, which ended in fiasco 10 years ago.

    The Home Office did not learn the lesson on that occasion. I am wondering ​ whether, in a few weeks’ time, we may be able to make some rather less inhibited comments about this matter. We shall wait to see what is said.

    I am glad, too, to hear that the Government will press for improvements in the common agricultural policy. Again, I am a little sceptical because I noticed that a report published in The Guardian yesterday suggested that the protagonists of this system say that it will continue essentially in its present form for at least another 10 years. I know that the Minister of Agriculture tries hard, although I thought that he back-pedalled a little the other day in dealing with fisheries in a way uncharacteristic of him. Perhaps, again, I shall be able to be more unstinting in my praise when I see exactly what is proposed to be done and what the Government will do when, as will be the case, they fail to change the policy because those responsible will not accept change.

    Another measure which is most certainly overdue is that regarding credit and the banking institutions. I suppose that this is intended to prevent the occurrence of the scandal of the secondary banks over which the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) presided so ignominiously at the beginning of the seventies. Certainly, as it operates at the moment, it does not seem that the Consumer Credit Act, although it contains a number of useful provisions, does all that is necessary. As for the Crown Agents, why it has been so long before we have seen a measure to put that extraordinary and anomalous organisation on some sound and rational footing, I do not know. I welcome the fact that it is there. All power to the Government’s elbow in getting this measure through.

    I turn to one or two matters that are not so welcome. Among them is the proposed European monetary system. I suspect that we have not had reference to it today because the Government have not yet made up their mind. I hope that this means that we shall not have that system heaped on top of all the other Common Market measures.

    It will be difficult enough, with the pound rising in value against the dollar as it has done over the last six to nine months, to maintain our competitive position as the economy gets going again. ​ But if we were to be locked into a European monetary system, no doubt at a level which the Germans and French would ensure was to their advantage and our disadvantage, we should find our difficulties compounded. I suspect that the disadvantages would not end there and that, as a further consequence of the “salami” process of integration into the Common Market bit by bit, we should be expected to pool our second and third-line reserves and our overseas portfolio and overseas fixed investments would be the next target for the Eurocrats.

    I wonder when the day will come when we shall be able to stop them. All of those who are against the Common Market, who regretted going in and still work to get us out, will give the Government no end of difficulty should they eventually decide to bring us into the proposed European monetary system.

    There is the allied matter of the European elections. We hear stories that Government funds are to be made available because the Labour Party has not the money to spend on them. I hope that that is not to be the case. I hope that, in order to avoid the derisory poll which I hope and believe will be attendant upon the European elections, we do not have the extraordinary situation of the British General Election and the European elections being mounted on the same day.

    It has been suggested that in order to boost the European elections, following, as they will, the Scottish and Welsh referendums and the local government elections, the only way to avoid a contemptuously low poll will be to mount the General Election for this House and the elections for that organisation overseas on the same day.

    I heard the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) saying “How sad” when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), whom I had always understood to be an anti-Marketeer—perhaps I misunderstood him—proclaim that the Euro-elections were more important than the elections to this House. What an appalling confession of failure; what a defeatist attitude. Whatever part I shall play in the elections next year—there will be plenty of them—I shall do my best to see that as many Labour voters as possible—indeed, as many voters as possible ​ —have no truck whatever with the European elections and treat the European ballot paper as the waste paper that it deserves to be.

  • John Parker – 1978 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Parker, the then Labour MP for Dagenham, in the House of Commons on 1 November 1978.

    As the Member of Parliament who represents the greater part of the Becontree estate, which I think is still the largest council house estate in the country, I certainly welcome the proposal in the Gracious Speech to have a Bill on housing that will include provision for a new charter of rights for public sector tenants.

    The Becontree estate was built by the old London County Council between 1925 and 1933, outside the boundaries of its own authority. From the very beginning, the council exercised very dictatorial powers over the tenants of the estate. The refusal to place sons and daughters of tenants on the housing list made it essential that sons and daughters moved away to other areas when they grew up and wanted to marry. That destroyed the whole social community of people living together. Societies and organisations such as clubs, churches and so on could ​ not have a second generation coming on to run them as people got older. The community life was broken up by the council’s dictatorial ways. The result was a great deal of discontent about the way in which the estate was run.

    I remember suggesting, as long ago as 1948, that the only solution was for the local council to take over the estate and to run it. For some years that has been the policy of the Labour Party in the area. It is hoped to take over the whole of the estate in this coming year. One-third of it has already passed into the possession of the local council, and the remaining two-thirds is likely to be passed over in the near future.

    However, there will be a number of problems that will require sorting out. It is necessary for machinery to be set up to give tenants reasonable rights in the running and managing of the estate. It is also important that the local council should retain certain powers over the running of an estate of this kind, because many problems arise in such an area, as I know from my surgeries. I am thinking of tenants who misbehave and make a nuisance of themselves to everybody in the district. Sooner or later the council may want to terminate the tenancies of those people in the interests of the neighbours who are suffering the nuisance, and it must retain the right to do so, which it should exercise in reasonable circumstances.

    There is great controversy about whether people should or should not keep dogs. Half the population on the estate does not want dogs to be there because they foul the green places and footpaths, and children sometimes fall into the fouling and go home filthy and dirty. In high-rise blocks, dogs often create an enormous nuisance to everybody concerned. There are great differences of opinion on matters of this kind, and the local council, in conjunction with local tenants, must be able to have discussions and lay down rules and regulations about where dogs can and cannot be kept so that they are not a nuisance to the population as a whole.

    There is also the problem of vandalism, and the local council must be able to have discussions with tenants and organisations concerned on how to deal with vandalism and nuisances on these estates. ​ This is especially true of estates with high-rise blocks.

    I welcome the Government’s proposal for dealing with local authority tenants, but I await the details of the Bill. There must be a reasonable balance. There must be some right to hand on tenancies to sons and daughters. At the same time, the local council should continue to have adequate authority to deal with nuisances and abuses that arise on estates.

    The Queen’s Speech does not contain any recommendations for dealing with juggernauts. Those who read The Guardian are rather horrified at some of the information that has come out during the last two or three days about pressure being put by leading civil servants to allow the road haulage industry to put the case for 38-ton and 40-ton lorries to a public inquiry. A certain Mr. Peeler, we are told, said:

    “We welcome the idea of an inquiry to get round the political obstacles to change the lorry weights.”

    The Guardian in its leading article yesterday had some comments on the juggernauts, but its financial columns carried an opposite point of view. It said:

    “The Minister should not put environmental considerations before export, employment and financial considerations in dealing with the question of juggernauts.”

    It is all very well for people who live in this small island to suffer from juggernauts in the way that we do, and sometimes to be killed by them, but we want some control over whether we shall be killed or allowed to live by these juggernauts.

    Juggernauts are a big problem in my constituency. What was built between the wars as a suburban road is now sign-posted with a green sign directing traffic from Dover to the North of England along Ballards Road. This is not a trunk road but is simply a local authority road, and the traffic on it has increased considerably. On 1st March, between 8.30 am and 8.30 pm, 870 lorries of 15 tons or more passed along that way, and similar figures can be given for almost every day since then.

    The result of that traffic is that local houses are being shaken to pieces. This means enormous expense to local ratepayers in Barking because of smashed pavements and drains and service pipes ​ that are crushed and need renewal. This results in a charge on those living in the houses and ratepayers generally. These heavy lorries also create difficulties for old people going to the shops if they have to cross roads, and for children going to school. Furthermore, after the recent disasters abroad there are fears about the number of petrol and chemical lorries that travel along this road.

    Because of the crowding of traffic on that road, there is now what one can call a rat run. There are diversions through neighbouring roads such as Orchard and School Roads which are residential roads near to schools and shopping areas, and this traffic is creating enormous problems. Twice recently, direct action has been taken by mothers lying on the road and blocking it at peak hours to stop traffic running through these rat runs. The feeling among local people is that nothing is done to solve the problem and that everybody passes the buck.

    The Home Office passed the buck. The Department of Transport passed the buck. The buck was finally passed to the GLC, which the Department says is the authority that should deal with transport and find the best route through this area. A look at the map, however, shows that it is difficult to find an alternative route on this side of London to take traffic from the South-East up to the North.

    I am told by the Department of Transport that all trunk roads are primary roads for major traffic and that in this case the GLC has the job of assessing the most suitable non-trunk road to include in the primary route network. I hope that the GLC will reconsider the local position. As I said, it will be extremely difficult to find an alternative route through this area for heavy traffic.

    The Department goes on to say that when the opening of the A12 to A13 section of the M25 takes place it will bring relief, but that will be in 1981. Why wait so long? Priorities for road schemes should be looked at every October and November for the coming season. I suggest that this project should be brought forward to 1979.

    The road transport haulage lobby is one of the strongest in the House and in the country. It is one of the most dangerous lobbies, and it has enormous ​ power. The Government would do well to face up to the road haulage lobby.

    They should face up to it first and foremost by taxing juggernauts fairly. Large juggernauts do not pay their fair share of taxation. Other lorries, public transport, motor cars and so on pay their fair share of taxes, but juggernauts do not. The first thing to do is to raise the taxation on these juggernauts.

    Secondly, I suggest that these juggernauts should be limited to motorways, and a list of trunk roads which they may use. All roads to be used by juggernauts should be made and maintained as trunk roads, and only they and motorways should be used by these huge lorries.

    Thirdly, there should be distribution centres in all large cities on the trunk roads, from which local traffic can collect containers and other goods brought there by these juggernauts. The goods could be distributed in much the same way as marshalling yards are used to distribute traffic carried by the railways.

    Fourthly, the Government should encourage other forms of transport. What about the railways? It is time that we reconsidered the Channel tunnel. I suggest that it is a viable proposition for freight trains to carry goods only over considerable distances. The latest proposal is for a fairly simple Channel tunnel to be financed largely from EEC resources. It would be a two-rail route, and if the volume of traffic justified it another tunnel could be built later.

    I suggest that such a tunnel would make an enormous difference to the amount of traffic on our motorways. It would be possible for freight trains to take goods from Glasgow to Lyons, or from Liverpool to Zurich, without any break on the way. What happens now is that a large amount of traffic comes to Calais and a large number of ships come into Rotterdam or Hamburg, where they offload their cargoes into lorries—usually foreign lorries—which then come over by ferry on to our roads. It would be much better if a lot of this traffic was taken directly by rail rather than by lorry, and in the long run it would be cheaper. If funds are not entirely forthcoming from the EEC, the Government should invest in this development to make the railways once again a viable freight carrier.

    I am pleased that the South Yorkshire canal has finally been given the go-ahead. It is to be used by coal and steel traffic in the neighbourhood. Surely similar forms of transport could be developed for the London docks. The BACAT scheme failed, but surely something similar could be developed not only for the South Yorkshire canal but for the Thames, so that suitable ships could bring cargoes direct from the Continent up into our waterways.

    I do not wish to discriminate against the ordinary motor car, which pays its fair share of taxation. It would have more room on the roads if many juggernauts were removed. There is a great danger in many areas of traffic being bogged down in jams. The individual motorist and the public transport operator both suffer.

    As a member of the Historic Buildings Council, I know of the problem of historic towns being shaken to pieces by heavy traffic. I was pleased to learn this summer that at last a bypass around Ludlow is to be built. Another proposal is for one around Berwick, which is also highly desirable. The Department of Transport should collaborate positively with the HBC in deciding where bypasses are to be built, since historic towns are important foreign currency earners through tourism, and this would also help their inhabitants to live more pleasurable lives. During October and November every year proposals for bypasses and road transport should be reviewed five years ahead. If some proposals could be pushed back and others brought forward according to the needs revealed, well and good.

    For example, Tewkesbury obviously needs a bypass. Also, I can never understand why one has not been built around Petersham, a small village near Richmond, where a road could easily be put through the bottom end of Richmond park, where no one would see it. The houses in that attractive village are being shaken to pieces by traffic.

    There is no mention of conservation in the Gracious Speech. There has been an enormous increase in interest in this subject in recent years. This interest is particularly welcome in a mainly urban population. It shows that people are anxious to preserve the surrounding countryside and its wildlife. But many conservationists are ignorant of, or ignore, the problems ​ of country dwellers. Some important societies, like Friends of the Earth, have alerted people to the danger of the extinction of species such as whales and otters, but many animal lovers who lobby this House are ignorant of the subjects they take up.

    If wildlife is to be maintained, from time to time it has to be culled, which means killing. Many animal lovers do not like that prospect. There are more deer in this country now than there were in the Middle Ages. Many of us are glad that they can be seen from time to time, although most of the flesh is exported to Germany, because British people do not much like venison. But this means regular culling of the deer in the New Forest and other areas.

    Practically every deer culled in the New Forest is found to be peppered with buckshot, probably fired by young boys. If culling is not done scientifically, it causes a great deal of suffering to the animals. Animal lovers should recognise that it is necessary and that it should be properly and responsibly organised.

    There has been a great campaign against the culling of ponies in the New Forest and on Dartmoor. It is alleged that they are sent to Belgium to be eaten. We cat cows and bulls, so why should not the Belgians eat ponies if they wish? It is better that they should be scientifically culled than that their numbers should increase to the point where they are a nuisance to themselves and to people in the neighbourhood.

    There has also been a campaign recently about seals in Orkney. When seals become too numerous, one cow bites off the heads of another cow’s pups, and then the males come in and overwhelm them when they want intercourse again after their birth. The result is an overcrowded colony with a great deal of suffering. The Scottish Office mishandled its publicity on this matter. A decision should be made, on the evidence, about the optimum size of a colony and the cull should be carried out accordingly. To take the line that we should never kill wild animals is sloppy sentimentality. That is the approach of many of the sillier animal lovers, who in my experience are often university dons.

    There should be some expenditure also on forestry, a subject which was widely ​ discussed during the debates on the Wales and Scotland Bills. Ninety per cent. of our timber is imported and we need to help the balance of payments. Government and, I hope, private money should be spent on planting over the next 50 years to double the area under trees. The land must be acquired and the Government should assist in finding suitable land. When land is afforested with crops of varying ages, there is a big increase in wild life as compared with conditions on open moorland.

    There is a strong campaign by ramblers’ associations and others against conifer forests, but if those forests are properly managed they are very attractive. One of the most popular areas in the Lake District is Tarn Hawes, which is a mainly conifer beauty spot. What is aesthetically unattractive is a large number of trees all of the same age. I agree that in its early years the Forestry Commission made many mistakes in its planting, but it has since had the services of Dame Sylvia Crowe and more recent planting has been much better managed from a scenic point of view, without any damage to the productivity of the forests that have been so organised.

    I hope and trust that the Government will take an active interest in making available to both the Forestry Commission and private owners more land to plant up and so increase our forestry reserve. I am sorry that the Gracious Speech does not include proposals to make capital available for that development. But, on the whole, I welcome the Gracious Speech as incorporating the right kind of programme to try to carry through at present. I hope that we shall manage to carry at least some of it into law before the end of the present Session.