UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Joan Lestor – 1978 Speech on Whooping Cough Vaccine

    Below is the text of the speech made by Joan Lestor, the then Labour MP for Eton and Slough, in the House of Commons on 26 May 1978.

    My debate follows well from the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Last July the Minister and I met on a similar occasion. Following that debate he wrote a letter to me about whooping cough vaccine. I had asked him during the debate why smallpox vaccination was no longer advocated as a routine measure for young children in this country. The Minister promised that he would let me have the answer in a letter.

    Two weeks later he wrote to me and said that smallpox vaccination was no longer advocated as a routine measure because the incidence of smallpox abroad had declined and that therefore the risk of a child contracting it in this country was now less. He said that it was felt that the risk of damage from the vaccination was more dangerous than the likelihood of small- ​ pox. That is true, and has been for a long time.

    I wish to find some common ground with my hon. Friend before I begin the main thrust of my argument. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that in all these illnesses, whatever the efficacy of the protection might have been, good health, sanitation and improved environmental circumstances have contributed as much, if not more, to the erosion of these infections than has any form of vaccination.

    It is common for the Department of Health and Social Security to say that since the vaccination was introduced among young children in the 1950s, whooping cough has declined, but whooping cough was declining in this country long before vaccination was introduced. An examination of the figures at the turn of the century proves that. Instances of whooping cough have risen and fallen over the years, but they have never been as great as they were when the disease was at its peak at the turn of the century, although there have been epidemics.

    I take issue with my hon. Friend and shall continue to do so until I at least am satisfied, because whatever one’s views might be about vaccines in general, the anxiety about the whooping cough vaccine and the way in which the situation has been handled by the DHSS is militating against the use of many other protective vaccines for young children.

    My hon. Friend is not a doctor. His colleagues are not doctors, neither am I. Ministers rely for their conclusions on advice and judgments given to them by advisers under the Committee on Safety of Medicine.

    When the medical profession disagrees as profoundly as it does on the question of whooping cough vaccine any layman or woman has a right to go to other sections of the medical profession and ask them their opinion. Is what such people say being evaluated properly? Those who first questioned thalidomide were told that they were foolish, that there was no evidence, and that it should be ignored. A time will come when, just as we see contraceptive pill after contraceptive pill withdrawn because of new dangers associated with it, other drugs will be withdrawn. A few people stand out and say “I am not satisfied. I am ​ not happy”, and one must take note of them.

    For most of my information, but not all, I shall quote Professor Gordon Stewart, of Glasgow—who is well known to the Department—and Dr. John Wilson, of Great Ormond Street. It is well known that cases of whooping cough have been declining for a long time.

    I wish my hon. Friend to establish an important matter. We were told that there would be an epidemic of whooping cough and that unless there was a massive campaign of vaccination of children against it all hell would break loose. We were told that there would be a devastating epidemic. We have had epidemics before to a greater or lesser extent. The most important consideration, however, is the number of children who, having been vaccinated, were among the increasing number of cases in certain parts of the country subsequently to suffer from whooping cough. The evidence to that effect is mounting to considerable proportions. Again, I refer my hon. Friend to the work that has been done by Professor Gordon Stewart in this respect.

    I believe that the evidence will ultimately show that children who are vaccinated against whooping cough suffer from it far less severely. In the early days of vaccination, doctors, believing that vaccination gave total protection, were not notifying cases of whooping cough. I hope that the Department is checking the research which has shown that recent cases of whooping cough have occurred among children who were vaccinated against the complaint. Large numbers of children—Professor Gordon Stewart puts the figure at 70 per cent.—who were found to be carrying whooping cough had been vaccinated against it. In addition to the dangers, therefore, there is doubt about the efficacy of the vaccine.

    Much was made by the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister about the possibility of an epidemic and about the need for a campaign. In spite of the advice that the campaign should be delayed, he took the view that it should go ahead. He said that children who had been damaged by the vaccination would be compensated, and that the risk from the vaccination was so minimal and the risk from whooping cough so great that it was better to have children vaccinated.

    It is interesting to note, however, that the incidence of measles, rubella, and influenza, as well as other children’s illnesses against which protection can be given, have all increased. Has the DHSS done it work to check whether the increased incidence of these complaints has occurred among children who were vaccinated? If that is so, why pick out just whooping cough, particularly when we know some of the dangers associated with the vaccine?

    Figures have been published from time to time showing the risk of death from whooping cough. The group most at risk from whooping cough always has been babies and young children. The few deaths that have occurred in the current outbreak of whooping cough have been of young babies. The reason is that young babies cannot be protected against whooping cough. Babies can be vaccinated against whooping cough only between the ages of nine and 12 months, and therefore babies outside that age range are at risk from whooping cough, whether there is a programme of vaccination or not.

    Even before vaccination was introduced, young babies died more frequently from whooping cough than did older children. It is an illness that proves fatal in very young children. We now know, therefore, that babies cannot be protected against whooping cough. Even so, the Department is considering reducing the age for vaccination in order to concentrate the efficacy of the vaccine into a shorter period of weeks or months. If that is so, the DHSS must proceed with care. It may cover itself by saying that children at risk should not be vaccinated, but how on earth does one establish whether a young baby is at risk?

    I do not believe that the Department can ever establish the common factors among the children who were damaged as a result of the vaccine to enable it to determine which group of children is at risk. That is because there were no common factors. Many children who suffered damage from the vaccine had not been thought to be at risk. Just what is the area of risk? What were the common factors among the children who were at risk? What were the common factors among those who suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine? If we do not know what these common factors were, how can we say which children are at risk?

    There is talk about bringing down the age in order to concertina this thing in to protect young children, but if children who have been vaccinated are getting whooping cough—I think that the evidence that has been presented is overwhelming—the likelihood of offering greater protection to babies seems very suspect.

    Secondly, and, of course, more importantly, if—I do not know this—the DHSS decides that it would not be sensible to bring down the age of vaccination for young children, they will continue to be at risk, and they have the biggest risk of death from whooping cough. It has always been the argument about death from whooping cough that has been the main thrust of the argument for vaccinating children. But young babies have always been at risk in relation to the older children in the family.

    Professor Gordon Stewart says that the vaccine is fairly ineffective and that this fact has been hidden because doctors believed that children were not getting whooping cough because they had been vaccinated. It is interesting that the baby in the family has often had whooping cough and no one has known where the baby has got it from, because the rest of the family have been protected. But if Professor Gordon Stewart’s argument is correct, that it merely lessened the symptoms but they still got the disease, of course babies were still getting whooping cough. There is little that one can do about that, with or without vaccine.

    I put another point to my hon. Friend. Has the extent of the damage to the vaccine-damaged children been quantified in any way? People talk about brain damage, but we know of cases of paralysis, of various types of mental defects, of continuous screaming, and of other minor effects resulting from the vaccine which have also been reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

    Among the things that I should like to ask my hon. Friend is the question whether the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines has given his blessing to the campaign now going ahead for the vaccination of children. Has he given his support to the advocacy to parents that they should have their ​ children vaccinated? If so, I believe that he and the Department are being very negligent in not taking into account and answering the constant arguments that are being put forward by Professor Gordon Stewart and others. To my mind, they have not been answered. Until they are answered, I believe that a large number of parents in Britain will hesitate not only about this vaccine but about many others. Until these points are answered, the whole case about preventive medicines and preventive inoculations, and about various other things, is very much at risk.

    In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend that I do not believe that anything that has happened since the first warning signs about whooping cough vaccine were given has wiped the slate clean, as it were. There are doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine. There are certainly doubts about the way in which one will protect those at the greatest risk—babies—without subjecting them to even greater risks. Thirdly, there are very strong doubts indeed that the risks from the vaccine are now not greater than the risks from the effects of whooping cough.

    It was on those grounds that the smallpox vaccine was certainly discouraged in this country, and I believe that it is on those grounds that the vaccination of children against whooping cough should also be discouraged.

  • Frank Judd – 1978 Statement on the Council Of Ministers’ Meetings

    Below is the text of the statement made by Frank Judd, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 25 May 1978.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during June. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Tuesday 23rd May.

    At present, six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for June. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 6th June and again on 26th and 27th June. The Transport Council will meet on 12th June, the Finance Council on 19th June, the Agriculture Council on 19th and 20th June and the Social Affairs Council on 29th June. In addition, it is probable that Fisheries Ministers will meet on or around 19th June.

    The Foreign Affairs Council is expected to review progress on the common strategy for growth and employment which is to be considered at the European Council at Bremen. Within this framework, Ministers will discuss questions of economic and trade policy and their consequences for Community industry. The Council will continue its discussion of the Commission’s survey of the implications of enlargement—known as the “fresco”—and will also consider a progress report on the Greek accession ​ negotiations and the Commission’s opinion on Portugal’s application for membership.

    The Council will also discuss the Community’s relations with the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance—which is the economic grouping of the Soviet Union and its allies, sometimes known as COMECON—progress in trade negotiations with Yugoslavia, relations between the Community and Australia, a report by the Commission on their contacts with the Japanese Government, and a Commission communication on shipbuilding. The Council will examine the statement to be made by the Community at the opening of renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.

    The Transport Council is expected to consider maritime pollution caused by oil tanker accidents, the United Nations code of conduct for liner conferences, maritime competition by State trading countries of Eastern Europe, priorities for work on civil aviation matters, commercial vehicle taxation systems, drivers’ hours, co-operation between railway undertakings and, possibly, the harmonisation of summer time.

    The Agriculture Council will consider proposals for the organisation of the markets in mutton and lamb, and in potatoes. Fisheries Ministers may consider the future of reciprocal fishing arrangements with third countries, particularly Norway, Sweden and the Faroes, and may also resume discussion of the revision of the common fisheries policy.

    The Finance Council is expected to consider the action needed in pursuit of the common strategy for economic recovery; and, possibly, the draft directive on life assurance.

    The Social Affairs Council is expected to consider aids to promote the employment of young people, an action programme on safety and health at work, a proposal for protecting workers exposed to the gas vinyl chloride monomer used in the manufacture of PVC plastic material, and a Commission statement on the European Trade Union Institute. Members are also expected to consider the implications for the free movement of labour of the transfer of workers between member States during industrial disputes.

    Mr. John Davies

    Does the Minister of State agree that this month, for which he has just advertised the programme, contains a quite unusually high number of critical matters? Apart from the continuing issues, there are new developments of a major kind in terms of trade policy, enlargement, relations with COMECON, relations with Australia and New Zealand—in the latter case in respect of sheep meat—and the start of the renegotiation of Lomé. All of these are fundamental issues of prime importance.

    I notice that in all these matters there is likely to be a major impact on overseas political relationships, and I wonder whether there is provision for a political co-operation meeting during the month as well. The hon. Gentleman made no announcement of it. Perhaps he would say whether that is so. If it were, presumably it would also be preparing, as the Foreign Affairs Council is, for the meeting of the European Council. If that is so, ought it not to prepare for the European Council taking a clear position on relationships with COMECON? It seems to be necessary that we should point out that for a community which is so dedicated, as the European Community is, to the principles of the freedom of the individual, to be taking on such negotiations shortly after the gross affront to human rights involved in the Orlov trial is extremely questionable.

    May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that recent events in Africa must be taken into account and that the European Community must prepare itself for handling a problem which has wrongly been presented as one which is simply safeguarding European lives? Is it realised that the need for the presence of Europeans throughout Africa is essential to the continuation of prosperity in that continent and that, if Europeans are to be discouraged by such events without any hope of help other than a last-minute emergency operation, the possibility in the future of having essential expatriates in Africa will be in question, and that affects the prosperity of the continent as a whole?

    Mr. Judd

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those very searching questions. About the high level of significance of the work before the Council, I do not dispute what he says. But as he will understand from his experience, this is ​ always inclined to happen towards the end of a presidency. We are coming to the end of the Danish presidency, and inevitably matters accumulate on the agenda. I would, however, take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the effectiveness with which our Danish colleagues have conducted their presidency, especially under Mr. K. B. Andersen, their Foreign Secretary.

    As for political co-operation, of course, the issues which are mentioned have great international political significance. But I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that we are to discuss substantial issues within the existing main machinery of the Community indicates that there may not necessarily be a need for a political commentary as distinct from this. Sometimes I think that the distinction drawn between economic and social matters and political matters is a little artificial. Inevitably, a great many economic and social discussions have political consequences. But the main discussions will be within the formal Councils themselves. If necessary, political co-operation can take place in the margins.

    Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about COMECON, of course we are all deeply concerned. Everyone in this House is concerned about human rights in the Soviet Union, as they are about the human rights in other parts of the world. This will be very much in our minds as we deliberate.

    The right hon. Gentleman then referred to Africa and made a very constructive comment. It is the fact, of course, that European and other co-operation in Africa is essential to economic and social progress. We have to look for ways in which this can be undertaken in safety and security. That is a problem that we all face and if, within the Community, we can tackle it, I am sure that that will be good progress.

    Mr. Speaker

    May I seek the co-operation of the House? If hon. Members would ask brief questions it would be a great help because many want to speak in the later debate, and there is an important point of order before that.

    Mr. Jay

    As we have been promised repeatedly a radical reform of the common agricultural policy, which is essential to this country, will my hon. Friend say whether British Ministers will put forward ​ positive proposals for such reform at these meetings?

    Mr. Judd

    I assure my right hon. Friend that we are practically committed to this. The Minister of Agriculture has demonstrated what we have been able to achieve in his recent activities in the Council of Ministers. We shall have this very much in mind in our approach to Mediterranean agriculture, enlargement of the Community and the reorganisation of mutton and lamb. Our objective is to avoid unnecessary surpluses, to look to the interests of consumers more effectively than in the past and to ensure fair access to the Community for the produce of third countries.

    Mr. Warren

    Will the Minister bear in mind that there was some doubt about whether there would be a meeting of Fisheries Ministers in June? Will he assure us that his European colleagues are not running away from the very fair and reasonable position that has been put forward by this country, and will he press them to agree to a sensible conservation policy for European fisheries?

    Mr. Judd

    There is a good point in that question because we do want an effective common fisheries policy. We do not want stocks to evaporate because there is no policy. That policy must be fair and must be seen to be fair, and the way in which there has been a certain amount of ganging up in order to isolate Britain in the past is not the way to achieve results.

    Mr. Ioan Evans

    What view will the Government take about the harmonisation of summer time in view of the fact that in the Scotland and Wales Bill there were disharmonising proposals put forward at that time?

    On the more serious point about proposals from the United Nations disarmament conference, will this matter figure largely on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council?

    Mr. Judd

    On the point about summer time, it is early days yet. Theoretically, we see the case for harmonisation and we have no blind objections to the principle. However, we want to be very satisfied that there is a great deal of common ground between countries. At present the directive put forward is very tentative and we do not see immediate results.

    On the wider point, disarmament is not a matter on the agenda of the Council of Ministers. However, we are, as individual countries within the Community, taking this matter up and, as I said yesterday in the House, I am very glad that the British Government are taking a leading role at that conference.

    Mr. Dykes

    Is the Minister aware that the European trademarks office and registry is to be kept up in the early 1980s? I know that that seems a long way away, but discussions are already beginning. Will he press immediately, by way of a preliminary agenda of the Council of Ministers, for that to be considered for location in Britain, preferably in London? On all the evidence we have, the British trademarks industry, if I may call it that, is superior to similar industries in the other member States, and most of the work is done in English anyway.

    Mr. Judd

    We take that point very seriously. Obviously, the more we can become directly involved in the life of the Community, with institutions established in this country, for example, the more demonstrable will be the fact that we are all working together.

    Mr. Spearing

    On the organisation of the mutton and lamb market, does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister of Agriculture said that he would seek complete safeguards? Has he heard the New Zealanders say that the only complete safeguard is no regime at all? If there is a regime, will he agree that it will include higher prices or intervention stocks or both, and therefore will he not say that the British Government intend to resist any regime of any sort in this commodity?

    Mr. Judd

    I do wish that my hon. Friend would join my campaign to get rid of this ugly jargon, and stop using the word “regime”. If we could just talk about a marketing system I would be a great deal more content. We must break free from the connotations associated with words such as “regime”. We see ourselves committed to working towards a marketing system for mutton and lamb but we believe that it must be the right marketing system. In that marketing system we are determined that ​ there shall be proper, fair and adequate access for New Zealand, to which we are deeply committed.

    Mr. Jim Spicer

    During the visit of the Prime Minister of Turkey two weeks ago, the Minister of State met him, and the Prime Minister made quite clear his concern about the way in which the association agreement between the EEC and Turkey had been eroded over the years. Does the Minister consider that the agreement is a matter of vital urgency, which should be discussed and renegotiated at the same time as we deal with the negotiations for the enlargement of the Community?

    Mr. Judd

    We are all well aware of the anxieties of Turkey about the association agreement and, of course, as enlargement takes place, Turkey will study the implications. We must look very seriously at the Community to make sure that the association agreement is meaningful, practical and helpful for Turkey.

    Mr. Christopher Price

    Will my hon. Friend assure us that there is no binding link between the renegotiation of the association agreement with Turkey—or indeed any association between Turkey and the Council of Foreign Ministers in political co-operation—and the accession of Greece? Will he agree that these issues must be treated separately?

    Mr. Judd

    My hon. Friend is right. We are completely committed to the accession of Greece to the Community and we want to see it happen as soon as possible. There are no conditions attached to this in terms of our future relationship with Turkey. That is a separate issue but we take very seriously our future relationships with Turkey, both bilaterally and within the Community, and we believe that there is a certain amount of work to be done in that respect.

    Mr. Crouch

    Although I am a devout supporter of the European idea, I am at a loss to know what I am meant to do as a result of this statement today about these almost religious feast days we face next month in Europe. What am I supposed to do about them?

    Mr. Judd

    I would suggest that the hon. Member should turn up for all the ​ debates in the House on these matters and make his voice heard.

    Mr. Molloy

    Will my hon. Friend examine an issue which is causing some concern in local government and among local authorities—the activities of the British Council? This council appears to make itself an adjunct of the Common Market organisation by offering public money to British authorities to enable town clerks and councillors to go to the EEC to make certain arrangements between British cities and cities in the EEC to the exclusion of those in other parts of Europe and the Commonwealth.

    Mr. Judd

    If my hon. Friend would approach me specifically on that matter I shall look into it and reassure him.

    Mr. Blaker

    Will the Minister of State think again about the doubts he expressed on the need for a meeting on political co-operation? Surely one of the lessons learned from recent events in various parts of the world, and particularly in Africa, is that there should be early discussions by the Foreign Ministers about the need for better concerting EEC foreign policy?

    Mr. Judd

    I assure the hon. Member that we have political co-operation very high on the list of our priorities. We are always in favour of political co-operation meetings when these make sense. They can be arranged at short notice in the margins of other meetings, although they are not part of the formal meetings of Councils as such.

    Mr. Loyden

    Is my hon. Friend aware that about one-third of dairy farmers in Australia have been driven out of business in recent years partly because of dumping of dairy goods in Australia? Is he also aware that about £1,000 million in this year’s EEC budget will be used to carry out more dumping of dairy produce in Australia? Does my hon. Friend think that the British taxpayers should be asked to bear the cost of driving Australian dairy farmers out of business?

    Mr. Judd

    We certainly do not want to drive Australian dairy farmers or any Australians out of work. There will be very important talks between the Community and the special Minister in the Australian Government charged with ​ trade relations abroad on 8th and 9th June. Having met this Minister bilaterally we, as a Government, are determined to see constructive progress in those talks.

    Mr. Wiggin

    Will the Minister look at the recent farm price review arrangements and not keep referring to them in such euphoric terms? Is it not a fact that France and Italy did considerably better out of the price review than we did. It was, in fact, one of the highest in real terms and not the lowest as he described it, and furthermore it gave the highest increases to the three products in the greatest surplus. What plans will the Government take to the next Council of Agriculture Ministers to deal with the structural surpluses on the Continent? We have not heard anything from the Government about this yet.

    Mr. Judd

    I believe that the hon. Gentleman does not represent the view held by most people in this country who as consumers are content that their Minister has managed to bring down to reasonable proportions some of the proposals that were being discussed in the Council of Ministers. That is no mean achievement. I believe that my right hon. Friend has not only achieved that for the people of this country, but that as a result of his efforts, consumers throughout the Community are beginning to see the relevance of British priorities for reform of the CAP.

    Mr. Flannery

    Does my hon. Friend agree that in the course of trading and political relations with COMECON countries and particularly the Soviet Union, we must be clearly seen not to have double standards on the question of political trials with which we disagree? Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that when the Conservatives refer only to trials in those countries it would help us in our relations with them if the Conservatives were seen, as a possible alternative Government about 30 years or so hence, to criticise—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I should point out to him that we are discussing the Common Market. His supplementary question sounded indirectly more like one for business of the House.

    ​Mr. Flannery

    The question of political trials, including the Orlov trial, was raised by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). I raised it precisely because the right hon. Gentleman raised it.

    Mr. Speaker

    The hon. Gentleman is quite right, I heard the right hon. Gentleman raise the subject.

    Mr. Flannery

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Body

    Is it true that on 19th and 20th June Agriculture Ministers will be discussing a potato regime? May we have an assurance that no final decision will be made until the Commission’s draft proposals are available in this country so that not only we in this House but the farmers organisations which will be affected will have a chance to examine them?

    Mr. Judd

    We have many reservations on proposals for a marketing system for potatoes, and in that context we shall certainly want to take fully into account the views held in the House.

    Mr. Forman

    Notwithstanding the technical point which the Minister understandably made about the Danish presidency, does he not feel that from the long list that he read out in his statement these Council of Ministers’ meetings are becoming overloaded? Are the Government looking at some way of diminishing the burden on the Council of Ministers, perhaps by strengthening the role of the permanent representatives? What do they intend to do about that?

    Mr. Judd

    One of the contributions made to the work of the Community during the British presidency was to shift a great deal of the work on to the permanent representatives as distinct from the Council of Ministers. We want to continue this trend so that Ministers may concentrate on real policy issues. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that in doing that we must not lose sight of the overriding principle that it must be the Ministers, not the officials, who make the policies, and that the Ministers must be accountable to their domestic Parliaments.

  • Merlyn Rees – 1978 Speech on the Accountability of Special Branch

    Below is the text of the speech made by Merlyn Rees, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 24 May 1978.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that this was not the first time that he had raised matters relating to the activities of police special branches. Indeed, he pointed out that on the Adjournment a year ago he raised the subject of the conduct of inquiries by Special Branch officers.

    When talking about accountability, without over-stretching it, it occurs to me that the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the matter in the House, even though at the end of it there may be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the information that he gets, marks this country as different from many others where I doubt whether in the assembly the matter could be raised at all.

    I understand why my hon. Friend raised the matter of South Australia and linked it to people who had served in this country. But the responsibility and accountability for the Special Branch in this country lies with chief constables and police authorities, and I am the police authority for the Metropolitan area. ​ When I take over a job, such as Home Secretary, and I have to answer for it in the House, I make sure what I am responsible for. It is for that reason that, unusually I suppose for a Cabinet Minister, I am replying to the debate.

    I think that it is valuable for the subject to be raised. It allows my hon. Friend to raise matters of concern to him, but it gives me a chance to make one basic comment. I learned this in Northern Ireland as well. I attach the greatest importance to this sphere of police work. I emphasise my confidence in the way that such responsibilities are discharged. I shall also deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark).

    I should like to correct various misconceptions which exist. I accept straight away that if little information is given, it is not surprising that misconceptions arise. But the reality is that there is no other way of providing information without ruining the work of the special branch.

    I have two direct responsibilities. One concerns interception, about which the House knows. I take that responsibility squarely. The other is responsibility for the prevention of terrorism. A number of cases under this legislation come to me. It is then my responsibility to take a decision. It is a responsibility that no one else can take. Therefore, in a direct fashion I am involved in this work.

    With regard to accountability, there is no national Special Branch. Police forces in England and Wales each have their own Special Branches. I am not a Minister of the Interior; I am the Home Secretary. My responsibility, except in the peculiar fashion of the Metropolitan Police, where I accept that the Special Branch is the largest, does not put me on all fours with a Minister of the Interior in other countries. The “Met” Special Branch co-ordinates the collection of intelligence affecting the activities of the IRA, as it has for nearly 100 years. It does not control the special branches of the other forces.

    This is a normal part of police duty. Officers employed on those duties are responsible, through their senior officers, to their chief officers of police who are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the preservation of public ​ order in their areas. They are not free from control. The opposite is true. Chief officers fully recognise that the duties of Special Branch officers are such as to require the strictest control by senior officers. Special Branch officers are accountable for their actions in the same way as all other police officers. They are not exempt from the provisions of the police discipline code or from the law. The complaints procedure is the same for them as it is for anybody else.

    Reports of investigations into complaints are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless, in the same way as with other police officers, the chief officer or his deputy is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed. The same procedure applies.

    Special Branch officers receive detailed instructions about the way in which they should carry out their duties and their responsibilities. I shall return to that. Mistakes are sometimes made. Perhaps that is inevitable in any area of human activity. Enthusiasm sometimes overcomes what should have been better judgment.

    Special Branch officers are accountable in the same way as any other police officer. Theirs is not an independent force. The subject matter of their inquiries makes it difficult for their work to be in the open, as is the generality of police work. But structure, training, discipline and organisation are designed to place Special Branch work firmly within the normal police arrangements.

    My hon. Friend spoke of the different definitions of subversive organisations. I have looked at this matter carefully. When one talks about different definitions over a period of years, implying that the scope of the Special Branch is different, I say to my hon. Friend that the information collected by the Special Branch relates entirely and solely to the proper purposes of protecting the security of the State and public order. That involves the ability of ordinary citizens to go about their peaceable and ordinary lives. Any idea that inquiries are made about people, or that files are kept on people, for other purposes or because of their political ideas or positions is not true. That is my responsibility overall. I take that responsibility seriously.

    ​ I have been in the Labour movement all my life. When I was younger the Labour Party was not as respectable as it now is—and perhaps as unrespectable as some people will try to make it out to be when we have a General Election. I know that there were times when it might have been thought that if one had a book in one’s room with “Marx” on it it could have been made out that one was a traitor or in the pay of a foreign Power. If that is the view of the hon. Member for Sutton I hope that he never has anything to do with the Special Branch, because that is the wrong attitude.

    Mr. Alan Clark

    That is the reverse of my view.

    Mr. Rees

    But the hon. Member laughed. We should be serious about this matter. In this country names are not put on lists because of political views. Parliament and the police are rightly concerned about those whose intention is to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy. They are not concerned about those who accept democratic institutions and the rule of law and who wish to exercise their right of protest.

    I have no objection to giving the numbers in the Special Branch. Perhaps that has not been done before. The Metropolitan Police Special Branch numbers 409. There are about 850 officers in other forces in England and Wales engaged on what might be regarded as Special Branch work. About 300 of them are employed at the ports, though not all are Special Branch officers. That is the great change that has taken place over the years. Twelve million people come in and out of the ports. I am questioned in the House when someone gets out after having killed an Arab Minister who is visiting this country. Checks are made at the ports, and that takes large numbers of men. The checks are carried out to a degree that has never been practised before.

    If it were not done properly there would be questions asked of me. Questions were put to me this week about a report that Carlos was seen in Kensington, with all that is implied in that. An answer that I have given to that matter is to appear either tomorrow or today.

    I turn now to the Irish question. Anyone who believes that the success rate of the Metropolitan Police, particularly ​ in the Balcombe Street siege, where 700 police officers turned up in a matter of minutes, is due to the Commissioner suddenly saying “Let us go to that area” knows nothing about policing. It is important that information is obtained.

    There is also the question of protecting Ministers. I and my family have had protection over four and a half years. It is provided by a group of armed men who work a watch system. They are Special Branch men. When one considers the number of people who have to be given protection in the course of a day, the numbers of the Special Branch can be seen in context.

    I turn now to the question of secrecy and the lack of information. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the reports of chief officers. He said that there was a difference between Durham and other parts of the country. But it is not possible to give detailed accounts of Special Branch operations.

    It is not, however, my intention or that of the police to shroud a perfectly reputable and normal branch of the police organisation in undesirable secrecy. I am always prepared to look at cases. On the case in Gwent, I say only that apologies have been offered. The matters in Paisley, in Scotland, are not my responsibility; they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. There, I understand that the man was transferred. I have a report about what happened at Greenwich. Unfortunately, time is now running out, but I can say that the Commissioner has assured me that much information in that respect was wrong and that none of it was obtained from a Special Branch officer who was called to the factory to deal with allegations of industrial sabotage.

    At Keele no information was sought about the political affiliations or views of anyone. I have looked at a number of these cases very carefully. On one or two of them I say that what happened had better not have been done. But anyone who believes that these are examples of something like the KGB or OGPU—such suggestions may have been made outside, ​ but they have not been made by my hon. Friend, who has looked carefully into this matter and done a great deal of research—would be wrong.

    This is not the tip of the iceberg. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern about some of the cases that he raised, and I have dealt with some of them quickly. I do not believe that he has established any sort of a case for a general inquiry into Special Branch activity. I am not complacent about the role of this Special Branch and that is why this debate and debates of this kind are useful occasions.

    Officers in the Special Branch are subject to the ordinary law of the land. The Special Branch is not attacking democracy; it is playing its part in defending it. I know a number of the officers personally and I congratulate them because I know of some of the work they do in the fight against political terrorism.

    In view of political terrorism and all the talk that we shall no doubt have in the context of a General Election, it might be a good idea if we praised the way in which we carry out our political activities in all the parties instead of making out that one side or the other is weak, deficient or unpatriotic.

    We may have suffered less from terrorist acts than some of our European partners, but we are not immune from that threat, and it would be foolish to pretend that we are. We give a lot of time to considering the possibility that that sort of thing might happen, and we need information from the Special Branch. I am satisfied that the chief officers of police fully understand the proper role of the Special Branch and are aware of their responsibilities.

  • Robin Cook – 1978 Speech on the Accountability of Special Branch

    Robin Cook – 1978 Speech on the Accountability of Special Branch

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robin Cook, the then Labour MP for Edinburgh Central, in the House of Commons on 24 May 1978.

    As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is a year ago this month since I obtained an Adjournment debate on the operations of the Special Branch. That was the first debate that this House had had on that specific matter in 20 years, although in that same period of 20 years the number of men in the Special Branch had increased five-fold from some 200 officers to more than 1,000 officers.

    I sought this Adjournment debate because I believed that it would be for the convenience of the House if we had an opportunity to review what had happened in the 12 months since we last discussed this matter.

    I take as my point of departure the observation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in reply to that debate that the place where we should look for information about the Special Branch was in the annual reports of chief constables. With the considerable help of the Library staff, I have been looking for that information in the annual reports of chief constables, and I have looked in vain for the information.

    Of the 36 annual reports of provincial forces which we have received, only one contains any statement on the Special Branch unit within the force. That is a particularly significant result, because it shows that the great majority of provincial chief constables are not aware of my hon. Friend’s view that the appropriate place for information about the Special Branch was in their annual reports. But it also establishes that at least one, the chief constable of Durham, felt able to give a concise statement about the number of the establishment, the officers in that establishment and the location of that establishment without feeling that it interfered with the effectiveness and efficiency of that unit.

    One of more notable examples of those who made no reference to the Special Branch was the Metropolitan Commissioner included no statement on ​ the Special Branch in his report, although we know that more than half of all the Special Branch officers in Britain are answerable to him. Of course, his report is presented to the Home Secretary and, through the Home Secretary, to Parliament, and one would have assumed that both the Home Secretary and Parliament would have a legitimate interest in knowing something about the Special Branch which operates under the control of the Metropolitan Commissioner.

    Just to rub home the point, I might add for good measure that the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary also contains no reference to the Special Branch.

    It would be a matter of only academic concern that there was so little information available on the Special Branch if there were no ground for concern about its activities. It would then be a quite proper matter for Members of Parliament to become exercised about the principles of accountability and the nature of the information which should be available so that we might have a proper open, public, democratic debate on the operations of the Special Branch. But it would not be a matter of urgent business. However, some of the incidents which have occurred and come to light in the past 12 months are disturbing.

    I should like to share with the House four of these incidents. In September of last year, there was the incident at Blackwood in Wales where, at a community college, two Special Branch officers called and requested the register and enrolment cards for a class on Marxist practice.

    In November of last year, a Special Branch officer called at Paisley College of Technology, interviewed a student in the college, and offered him what he called “tax-free payments”—I do not know what arrangement the Special Branch might have had with the Treasury—in exchange for information about the political views and activities of the other students at the college.

    In December of last year, two Special Branch officers called at Keele University and interviewed two students who were in the officer training corps and also the head porter of the students’ union, all three of whom they invited to submit information on “dangerous types”. When, subsequently, they were offered a list of 22 students, they turned it down, ​ apparently in scorn, on the ground that they had a far longer list of their own.

    What all these incidents had in common was that they occurred in educational institutions. This is particularly disturbing. Hon. Members are fond of imagining that this type of activity—of collecting information and dossiers on the political activities and views of college students—is more characteristic of Eastern rather than Western European States.

    I turn from the interest of Special Branch in educational institutions to its interest in industrial matters. Last summer the work force at Greenwich Reinforcement Steel Services occupied the factory and in the course of that occupation discovered a file containing a memorandum, signed by the works manager and dated September 1975, in which it was made quite plain that he had received information from a Mr. Meynard of Scotland Yard concerning two of the employees at the plant.

    In the first of these cases it was noted that the employee had been convicted in 1954—more than 20 years before the information was given and at a time when the man in question had been a youth of only 17. It was precisely to prevent that kind of communication that this House passed the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

    The other employee had noted against him three complaints, each of which was no more than a collection of tittle-tattle and gossip, and all of which in different ways were inaccurate. The file included for instance, the observation that the employee had taken part in “illegal demonstrations” although, praise be, there is, as yet, no such thing in Great Britain.

    It included also the observation that he had disturbed the peace during demonstrations, although the man in question had no conviction and had never been charged. Thirdly it included the information that he had distributed “national Socialist literature” which is thought to be a reference to the International Socialists.

    The inaccuracy of these remarks underlines one of the dangers in this practice. It is precisely because of the clandestine nature of this communication that it is impossible for the employee in question who is being slandered—and, make no ​ mistake, it is slander—to rebut the changes or correct the information.

    If we had some form of democratic scrutiny of the operation of Special Branch, and if it was answerable to some form of elected body, it is a matter of speculation whether that elected body, considering the general policy of Special Branch, would or would not agree that it should collect information on college campuses about students on that campus, pass information about past convictions, or participation in demonstrations, to employers. Personally I would be extremely surprised if any elected authority anywhere in Britain agreed to such a proposition.

    However, I am certain that whatever speculation there may be about the judgment that they might reach, decisions on such matters are of a political character and as such should not be left to policemen. Here we come to the nub of the matter. Over the last decade, as well as a growth in numbers in the Special Branch there has been a parallel expansion in the scope of its activities. These are neatly illustrated by two definitions of subversion which we have had over that decade.

    In 1963, in the course of his report on the Profumo case, Lord Denning offered this definition of subversives—those who

    “would contemplate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means.”

    Between 1963 and 1975 that definition was widened into that which was first offered in the other place, and repeated in this House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in April this year, in which he defined subversion as:

    “activities which threaten the safety or well being of the State, and are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.”—[Official Report, 6th April, 1978; Vol. 947, c. 618.]

    There is a crucial distinction between the definition of Lord Denning and the one given by my right hon. Friend. In the first place Lord Denning’s definition turns on the term “unlawful means”. The word “unlawful” is capable of clear, precise and narrow interpretation, based on statute and common law. The second definition of subversion does not turn on any reference to unlawful. It is in no way restricted to unlawful activities. It is, therefore, an invitation to the police forces that police this concept of subversion to stick their nose into any form of political or industrial activity.

    I am bound to admit that it may be that times have changed. It may be that there has been an alteration in the circumstances of society that Lord Denning could not reasonably have foreseen in 1963. If that is so, the course for my right hon. Friend is plain: he should bring before the House a measure that creates a new crime of subversion, which that measure would define and interpret. It is doubtful whether the House would accept such a measure in the foreseeable future, but it would be open to my right hon. Friend to present it to us.

    What the Government cannot do is by Executive decision create a new class of what we might term quasi-crimes such as subversion, which would not in themselves lead to conviction in any court in the land but render the suspect liable to police surveillance and being placed on police records. That is the road to the Thought Police and the closed society. If any hon. Member thinks that I am going too wide in my observations, I cite in aid information that I have recently obtained from Australia, where there has recently been published a report by a senior judge on the South Australian Special Branch. In the course of the report he mentioned that half of all those held on the records of the Special Branch are there only because they were

    “suspected by Special Branch of holding or supporting subversive’ views by reason only of the fact that such organisations or persons adopted policies or opinions which were ‘radical’ or ‘to the left’ of an arbitrary centre fixed by someone in Special Branch.”

    As a result of that wide definition, members of trade unions, peace movements, the women’s liberation movement and the divorce law reform movement in South Australia were placed on the Special Branch files.

    Predictably, there were many people in universities placed on the Special Branch files. Judge White found no fewer than two armfuls of files marked “University Matters”. In view of what I said earlier about the involvement of the Special Branch in education campuses it may be helpful if I quote Judge White’s conclusion. He said:

    “I gained the impression that nearly all of the material was entirely irrelevant to security issues.”

    That evidence from South Australia cannot be lightly dismissed. The South ​ Australian Special Branch was reorganised and re-formed in 1949 with the advice and assistance of Sir Percy Sillitoe, who was then head of MI5 in Britain. Moreover, the Commissioner for Police in South Australia for the past five years was the former Chief Constable of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshre. At both ends—at the creation of the organisation and at its control over the past five years—there is a clear British involvement. It is not unreasonable to take inferences from that report about the practice of the Special Branch in Britain.

    I am aware that there is another hon. Member who wishes to intervene and so I move to my close. Before doing so I make two matters plain. It is no criticism of the men who work in the Special Branch to say that the decision on whether someone is subversive is not properly their decision. It is not a matter for which they have had any training and not a matter on which many of them would claim to have expertise.

    Nor is it a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I take this opportunity of saying that I much appreciate the fact that he has decided personally to reply to the debate. It is not in any way a personal attack on my right hon. Friend, or on his competence or good faith, to say that it is not adequate to run a system on the basis of the judgment and integrity of the man at the top.

    The dilemma was neatly summed up in a reply made by my right hon. Friend in March, in which he said:

    “The Special Branch collects information on those who I think cause problems for the State.”—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 650.]

    Obviously, any system which operates on the basis of one man at the top keeping control is not a safe or democratic system. Nor is it a practical system given the expansion of the Special Branch and of its range of activities.
    How do we know that the incidents at Keele, at Paisley or in Wales are isolated incidents? How do we know that they are not simply the only incidents about which we happen to have heard? How do we know whether the case at Greenwich is the only case in which the Special Branch has given information on employees or the only ​ case in which the workers happened to obtain the files? We do not know the answers to these questions. We cannot know the answers without some form of independent inquiry such as has been carried out in Australia. I urge the House that the time for that inquiry is now ripe.

  • Jim Callaghan – 1978 Statement on Industrial Democracy

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jim Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 23 May 1978.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the White Paper on Industrial Democracy to be presented to Parliament this afternoon. Copies of the White Paper are in the Vote Office.

    The Government have now completed wide-ranging consultations on the report of Lord Bullock’s Committee of Inquiry. It has not been possible to reach agreement between those principally concerned and the Government accordingly submit their own proposals.

    The basis of the White Paper is that employees at every level in companies and nationalised industries like their counterparts in some other advanced industrial countries, should have a real share in the decisions within their enterprise which affect their working lives. The objective is positive partnership rather than defensive coexistence. This shared responsibility should bring improved industrial relations and increase the efficiency of British industry.

    The Government’s intention is that this objective should be secured, wherever possible, by voluntary agreement between employers and representatives of employees. It is not the purpose to impose a standard pattern of participation on industry by law. Employers and employees will be encouraged to devise ​ arrangements best suited to their own circumstances.

    However, where agreement proves impossible, employees will be able to claim certain statutory rights and the Government will introduce legislation to that end.

    The White Paper proposes that employees in companies employing 500 or more people in the United Kingdom should have a statutory right to have all major proposals of the company affecting them discussed with their representatives before decisions are taken. These discussions would include such matters as investment plans, mergers, takeovers, expansion or contraction of establishments and major organisational changes. This right should be vested in a joint representation committee. The committee would be composed of representatives of trade unions who are employees of the company and discussions will take place with this committee.

    The Government’s consultations show that in some cases arrangements on these lines will be as far as employees will wish to go in taking part in the affairs of the enterprise.

    But in many cases there will be a wish to go further and for representatives of employees to be appointed to company boards. If this cannot be achieved by voluntary agreement, the Government propose that employees in companies employing 2,000 or more people in the United Kingdom should be able, if they wish, to claim a statutory right to appoint, as a reasonable first step, up to one-third of the directors on the policy board of a new two-tier board structure. This right would be initiated by a request to the company from the joint representation committee and would be invoked after a ballot of all the company’s employees to decide whether they wanted to be represented on the policy board.

    Company law would be amended to provide for the option of a two-tier board system where the company prefers. Where there is agreement, the right to board representation can be on the existing unitary boards. The White Paper proposes that there should be a period of three or four years experience from the date of establishment of the joint representation committee before this statutory right comes into operation. The introduction of industrial democracy will be ​ a developing process and the Government do not exclude parity of representation as an ultimate outcome.
    The Government are convinced that trade unionists have an essential role to play in industrial democracy. But the White Paper recognises that the responsibilities to be given to trade unions for the appointment of employee representatives on the boards will need further discussion. The Government will reach a decision on this matter after further consultations.

    The Government will continue to encourage the development of industrial democracy at all levels in the nationalised industries. Chairmen of nationalised industries have been asked to consult unions and to put forward proposals by August 1978. When legislation is introduced, it will give employees in nationalised industries the right to representation on boards, where it is desired.

    In the public service, accountability of Ministers to Parliament and Parliament to the electorate must not be eroded. Similar considerations apply in local government. But, subject to this principle and the need to safeguard the interests of the community as a whole, the Government want employees and their representatives in the public services to be given all possible opportunities to contribute their views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.

    The Bullock Committee proposed the establishment of an industrial democracy commission to provide advice on the implementation of industrial democracy. The Government are disposed to accept this recommendation, but are ready to consult further about it.

    The direct involvement in overall company policies will require employee representatives to have a knowledge of business, finance, management and other subjects. Training for board members in these matters will be essential. No doubt much will be undertaken within the organisation itself, but it is also proposed that training should take place in residential or non-residential colleges and other institutions. Public finance will be needed to assist this.

    The Government believe that these proposals will enable employees and managements to achieve real co-operation by ​ sharing responsibility for the future prosperity of the companies in which they work. Both our economy and our democracy can benefit greatly. The Government will continue to consult widely so as to achieve the greatest possible agreement on the legislation that will be laid before the House.

    Mrs. Thatcher

    First, I thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of the White Paper this morning.

    Is he aware that the Opposition welcome proposals which will lead to greater involvement by the whole work force and note that these proposals seem to be very different from the Bullock version, and rightly so?

    I should like to put four questions to the Prime Minister. First, will all employees, whether trade union members or not, have an equal chance to participate in the processes of consultation? Secondly, will independent unions not affiliated to the TUC be equally treated with those which are? Thirdly, will it be right to assume that any statutory rights to be created will apply equally to the whole work force, or will there be discrimination against those who are not members of unions?

    Finally, what provision will be made to cover the special and vital role of those employees in junior and middle management? The Prime Minister will be aware that a number of them have felt demoralised because they are not involved as much as they might be. He will note that in the German scheme they are not bypassed. There is a special place for them. What special provision will be made for junior and middle management in participation?

    The Prime Minister

    The right hon. Lady is basically concerned with employees who are not members of trade unions. I shall seek to deal with those questions, because this has been a difficult matter. It is our intention and desire that all employees should take part in any ballot to decide whether the scheme for electing directors should take place—in other words, whether the scheme should be initiated. That seems important. It is also important that worker directors and, indeed, the joint representation committees should be drawn from employees of the company.

    I come now to the particular points made by the right hon. Lady. First, all employees can be involved in consultation.

    Whether the joint representation committee will include them will be a matter for discussion, because clearly the statute will not be able to cover that aspect. [HON. MEMBERS: “Why not?”] I shall explain that in detail when the legislation comes along. But there will be nothing to prevent the company from setting up parallel discussions with employees who are not members of trade unions if they are unable to get agreement through the joint representation committees. That seems to be the best way of achieving that result.

    It is certainly not intended that unions not affiliated to the Trades Union Congress should be excluded from the joint representation committees.

    As regards statutory rights, the system of parallel representation can apply. I think that it will have to be parallel representation. Otherwise, we may never get it going.

    Finally, there must be further discussion about junior and middle management. There are a number of issues on which we need to have further discussion, because clearly they have as much concern about the future welfare of the companies in which they work as anyone else. To that extent, we should like to see provision made for them.

    In conclusion—it is not in conclusion; I hope that it is the start of a long and important debate that could have a profound effect on the efficiency of British industry—one thing which we must have, of which I have been very conscious, is our own system of industrial organisation through trade unions. It is not like that of the Germans or of other countries. Therefore, although we want to make the trade unions in the companies the prior means of consultation and discussion, we do not want to exclude, and certainly no legislation would exclude, employees outside the trade unions. The legislation would have to be framed accordingly.

  • Edward Rowlands – 1978 Statement on British Subjects in Zaire

    Below is the text of the statement made by Edward Rowlands, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 22 May 1978.

    I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on British citizens in Zaire.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House on 16th May about the situation of British citizens in Zaire.

    I now have to tell the House with very deep regret that five British subjects must now be presumed to have been killed in the appalling atrocities which have taken place in Kolwezi in the past few days. An RAF officer, who was sent there yesterday as soon as the first information about British loss of life was received, has reported that he has firmly established the deaths of three of those concerned. We shall make every effort to confirm the position over the remaining two reported British victims as quickly as possible.

    The remaining 19 United Kingdom citizens who were known to have been in Kolwezi are now safely accounted for. Some have already been evacuated to Europe and others are still in Zaire. The British Embassy at Kinshasa is doing everything it can to help. It has not, in the event, been necessary to use two British Army medical teams which were sent.

    I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing deep sympathy to the families of those who have been so wantonly killed in these tragic events, as well as to all those of every nationality who have suffered in this terrible ordeal.

  • Hamish Watt – 1978 Speech on Drift Net Fishing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hamish Watt, the then SNP MP for Banff, in the House of Commons on 19 May 1978.

    I note that the Minister who is to reply to the debate comes from the West of Scotland. I come from the North-East of Scotland. The matter that we are debating is entirely Scottish. There must be a message there for someone.

    I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and to the public at large the continuing and, ​ inded, what is worse, the intensifying of the ban on the drift netting for salmon off the Scottish coast.

    This ban was imposed on the fishermen of Scotland, all of whom at that time operated small boats of about 40 feet, in 1962. That measure which went quickly through the House, was described by Sir William Duthie, who was my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Banff, as the worst piece of class legislation that ever went through Parliament. Sir William found it necessary to resign from the Tory Party in protest at the time. Since then, these fishermen have still been denied the opportunity to get a fair share of the catch of salmon which yearly return from their feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and which swim around the coast of Scotland seeking to return to their river of origin.

    Let me make it clear at the outset that it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the salmon cycle continues in perpetuity and that there is no desire on the part of anyone in Scotland to seek to damage the salmon stocks. Scotland’s fishermen have proved beyond doubt that they are the most responsible fishermen in the whole of the North Sea. They adopt conservation measures whenever any stock is in danger. The salmon is in no danger and the huge catches in recent years by the bag net and drag net operators surely prove this to be the case. The fishermen of Scotland are seeking only a reasonable share of the catch of the salmon that swim within three miles of the shore.

    At present, because of the ban which was so unfairly imposed by a Tory Government in 1962, only two sets of people can get an opportunity to catch salmon. First are the riparian owners—individuals, trusts, or companies who believe that because they happen to own land on the banks of a river they have also some God-given right to dictate to other people how they should or should not conduct their business. No one is suggesting at this stage that salmon swimming in the rivers within the banks on their land do not belong to them. But in passing I should like to say that I am somewhat amused to find that the law says that these landowners may not take water from the river, but they claim that the ​fish that swim in the river are all theirs. I shall let that fly stick to the wall at the moment.

    The second group of people who have the right to catch salmon are those operators who net the salmon at the mouth of the rivers as these salmon pass from salt water into fresh water. At present, these net operators totally close the mouth of the river for six days of the week, and the salmon have only about 24 hours out of the seven days in which they can run the gauntlet of the nets and reach the river.

    The Minister knows better than I of the vast profits that have been made in four of the past five years by these salmon fishers. In some cases the lease to such fishing has become virtually a licence to print money. There are very few operators who would not gladly concede one day of the week so that the salmon could have 48 hours, or preferably 54 hours, in which to reach the lower reaches of their parent river. If this were to be the case and the mouth of the river were to be opened that bit longer, there would be salmon for everyone.

    Everyone is well aware of the tremendous lobby that riparian owners, anglers and netting operators have, especially in the House, and of the continual shout that goes up whenever salmon angling is poor. But the fact that salmon are not rising to the angler does not mean that the salmon are not in the river. As the salmon do not feed at all while they are in the river, the wonder is that they ever rise to a lure at all. If the water level is not right or the weather is not suitable, the angler goes home in a huff blaming everybody but himself for his lack of luck. If that same fisherman came back to the upper tributaries of the main river in the dead of winter he would see salmon lying dead, dying or diseased and would realise the appalling waste of fish that would otherwise have reached the housewife’s table at a reasonable price.

    It is in a genuine desire to see that a fair proportion of the fish reach the market at a reasonable price that the sea fishermen round Scotland’s coast want to have the right to fish for salmon under a strict licensing system such as has worked so successfully off the Northumberland coast all these years.

    These fishermen are prepared to abide by whatever rules are drawn up and I commend the Northumberland scheme to the Government. The fishermen who have approached me and my colleagues in the SNP claim that they are even prepared to pay a reasonable levy per pound of salmon landed to pay for the stocking of every tributary with salmon fry—young salmon—as a double insurance in case nature has missed one tributary.

    These men are further prepared to abide by rules governing the length of nets allocated per man and will abide by a quota placed on the number of salmon to be caught annually. Here they would take advice from scientists. But they are not prepared to abide by the continuation of a grossly unfair ban where two sections of the community, which are backed by high finance, are allowed exclusive access to this one fish stock, while they are totally denied it.

    Even more disgraceful has been the action of certain of the riparian owners who virtually take the law into their own hands and promote one of their number to be a bailiff, who takes advantage of unfair laws to seek to act as some kind of Don Quixote and boards fishing vessels at sea and tries to arrest fishermen he suspects of poaching even when no policemen are present. This is a dangerous concept. The Government ought to look into the present situation and search their own conscience whether they wish to perpetuate this grossly unfair ban, which is in essence one law for the rich and another for the poor Is the Minister so proud of a situation where his Government, so-called Socialist Government, back the action of a self-confessed Fascist who believes that Adolf Hitler was right?

    I would appreciate it if the Minister in his reply will tell the people of Scotland just how far he is prepared to go in backing the action of the dangerous gentleman with the double-barrelled name. Will he also tell the House how much public money was spent last year in trying to catch men whom he chooses to call poachers?

    Everyone has heard of the unacceptable face of capitalism, but surely that face was at its ugliest in 1962 when this unfair and unrighteous ban was passed by the House. There was no real evidence that drift netting had caused a shortage ​ of salmon at that time. Certainly there was disease around at that time.

    How can anyone justify the claim that a drift net is a deadly weapon? These nets hang a maximum of three fathoms deep and fish can surely get round, under or over the nets if they choose. Drift netting can be carried out only in favourable weather. It can never be as deadly efficient as the sweep nets which are used in the rivers so that no salmon can pass them.

    If there is a scarcity of salmon, why have the Minister and his colleagues never taken steps to regulate or monitor properly the actions of these net operators? Why is it that the Minister’s counterparts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, who have jurisdiction over the coasts of England, have never sought to impose such a ban in England? The Minister knows and should admit that the method of licensing small boats administered by the Northumberland fisheries committee works well, fairly and equitably. I do not blame Scottish fishermen for seeking parity with their near neighbours. They are also seeking parity with their partners in the EEC.

    Surely the Minister sees that there is no legitimate ground for continuing this grossly unfair ban. There have been four Socialist Governments since 1962. Is it not time that we began to see the social face of Socialism? Surely it is time to bring an end of this “one law for the rich and another for the poor” syndrome.

    Scottish fishermen are no longer prepared to be treated as second-class citizens. There has been increasing evidence of that in recent months. Some small boat operators have been driven to defy this unfair ban because of the shortage of other species of fish.

    The Government must give strong evidence to justify the continuance of the ban and impose it equally throughout Britain. Indeed, they should attempt to impose it throughout the EEC. The fishermen of Scotland regard the ban as a fundamental denial of basic human rights. They request—indeed they demand—its immediate withdrawal.

  • Angela Rayner – 2020 Statement After Becoming Labour Deputy Leader

    Angela Rayner – 2020 Statement After Becoming Labour Deputy Leader

    Below is the text of the statement made by Angela Rayner, the new deputy leader of the Labour Party, on 4 April 2020.

    I want to thank everyone who took part in this election, and all those who have supported me through the campaign. I promise that I will do everything I can to repay your trust.

    Things have dramatically changed in our country in recent months but our values remain the same, and more important than ever.

    Those are the values we will reflect in our actions as an opposition and a movement – standing up for our public services, for our workers and carers, and for a society in which people work together and look after one another.

    Together, we must rebuild and reconnect with communities right across Britain who need our support now, more than ever before.

    I know we face a long and difficult road ahead but we must unite, both in the face of this crisis and to offer the better future that the citizens of our country deserve.

    I also want to offer my congratulations to Keir. This was a long campaign and by the end one conducted in extraordinary circumstances. The hard work begins today, and Keir will have my full support in both getting Labour on the path back to government and in being a voice for those who need us during this national crisis.

    We must make sure the government delivers on its promises, and acts faster to provide the protection frontline workers need.

  • Keir Starmer – 2020 Statement After Becoming Labour Leader

    Keir Starmer – 2020 Statement After Becoming Labour Leader

    Below is the text of the statement made by Keir Starmer, the new leader of the Labour Party, on 4 April 2020.

    It is the honour and the privilege of my life to be elected as leader of the Labour Party. It comes at a moment like none other in our lifetime.

    Coronavirus has brought normal life to a halt. Our cities, our towns and our villages are silent, our roads deserted. Public life has all but come to a standstill and we’re missing each other.

    People are frightened by the strangeness, anxious about what will happen next. And we have to remember that every number is a family shaken to its foundation.

    Unable even to carry out the most poignant of ceremonies, a funeral, in the way that they would like. It reminds us of how precious life is, but also how fragile.

    It reminds us of what really matters, our family, our friends, our relationships. The love we have for one another. Our health.

    Our connections with those that we don’t know. A greeting from a stranger, a kind word from a neighbour. These make up society. They remind us that we share our lives together. We have to trust one another and look after one another.

    And I can see this happening, people coming together to help the isolated and the vulnerable, checking on their neighbours.

    So many volunteering for the NHS, millions of people doing their bit to stop this virus and to save lives.

    Our willingness to come together like this as a nation has been lying dormant for too long. When millions of us stepped out onto our doorsteps to applaud the carers visibly moved there was hope of a better future. In times like this, we need good government, a government that saves lives and protects our country.

    It’s a huge responsibility and whether we voted for this Government or not, we all rely on it to get this right. That’s why in the national interest the Labour Party will play its full part.

    Under my leadership we will engage constructively with the Government, not opposition for opposition’s sake. Not scoring party political points or making impossible demands. But with the courage to support where that’s the right thing to do.

    But we will test the arguments that are put forward. We will shine a torch on critical issues and where we see mistakes or faltering government or things not happening as quickly as they should we’ll challenge that and call that out.

    Our purpose when we do that is the same as the Government’s, to save lives and to protect our country, a shared purpose.

    But that is not the only task for the Labour Party. The weeks ahead are going to be really difficult. I fear there are going to be some awful moments for many of us.

    But we will get through this. The curve will flatten, the wards will empty, the immediate threat will subside. And we have scientists working on vaccines.

    But when we do get through this we cannot go back to business as usual. This virus has exposed the fragility of our society. It’s lifted a curtain.

    Too many will have given too much. Some of us will have lost too much. We know in our hearts, things are going to have to change.

    We can see so clearly now who the key workers really are.

    When we get through this it’ll be because of our NHS staff, our care workers, our ambulance drivers, our emergency services, our cleaners, our porters.

    It will be because of the hard work and bravery of every key worker as they took on this virus and kept our country going.

    For too long they’ve been taken for granted and poorly paid. They were last and now they should be first.

    In their courage and their sacrifice and their bravery, we can see a better future. This crisis has brought out the resilience and human spirit in all of us.

    We must go forward with a vision of a better society built on that resilience and built on that human spirit. That will require bravery and change in our party as well.

    I want to thank Rebecca and Lisa for running such passionate and powerful campaigns and for their friendship and support along the way.

    I want to thank our Labour Party staff who worked really hard and my own amazing campaign team, full of positivity, with that unifying spirit.

    I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement and who’s a friend as well as a colleague.

    And to all of our members, supporters and affiliates I say this: whether you voted for me or not I will represent you, I will listen to you and I will bring our party together.

    But we have to face the future with honesty.

    Antisemitism has been a stain on our party. I have seen the grief that it’s brought to so many Jewish communities.

    On behalf of the Labour Party, I am sorry.

    And I will tear out this poison by its roots and judge success by the return of Jewish members and those who felt that they could no longer support us.

    The Labour Party is an incredible and powerful force for good.

    Together with those that went before us we’ve changed the lives of millions of people for the better.

    We created the NHS. We created the welfare state. We passed equalities legislation, the Race Relations Act, we set up the Open University. We built hospitals and schools, established Sure Start and played our part in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland.

    But we’ve just lost four elections in a row. We’re failing in our historic purpose.

    Be in no doubt I understand the scale of the task, the gravity of the position that we’re in.

    We’ve got a mountain to climb.

    But we will climb it, and I will do my utmost to reconnect us across the country, to re-engage with our communities and voters, to establish a coalition across our towns and our cities and our regions with all creeds and communities to speak for the whole of the country.

    Where that requires change, we will change. Where that requires us to rethink, we will rethink.

    Our mission has to be to restore trust in our party as a force for good and a force for change.

    This is my pledge to the British people. I will do my utmost to guide us through these difficult times, to serve all of our communities and to strive for the good of our country.

    I will lead this great party into a new era, with confidence and with hope.

    So that when the time comes, we can serve our country again in government.

  • Jim Prior – 1978 Speech on the Newspaper Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Prior, the then Conservative MP for Lowestoft, in the House of Commons on 18 May 1978.

    The subject of debate today is “Industrial relations in the newspaper industry”. I think that it points to the wisdom of the Opposition that they have tabled this matter for debate on a Supply Day. This is emphasised by the spate of comment in the national Press and on radio and television since the announcement was made last week. I believe that the problems go much wider than simply those that beset Fleet Street, although I suspect that a large part of this debate will concentrate on Fleet Street’s problems.

    The loss of papers in 1976 amounted to 72 million and in 1977 to 101 million. In the first three months of this year we lost 32 million copies of national daily and Sunday papers, and in the first four months of this year we lost 60 million.
    This is not only a problem for the capitalist Press, because I was interested to see that Tribune, in its special May Day edition, when it was hoping above all to be able to print large numbers of May Day greetings messages, found itself facing production difficulties. A notice in Tribune said:

    “We very much regret that because of production difficulties at our printers, over which we have no control, this week’s special May Day issue has to be severely curtailed.”

    This is a fairly widespread problem and is obviously a serious situation for the country. It is a situation that was unheard of a few years ago. It has always been one of the acceptable facts of British life that the papers were there on the breakfast table and that one could always rely on getting the paper of one’s choice early in the morning. It is only in the last few years that people have come to realise that they now do not know ​ whether they will receive their paper. Therefore, it is right that the House should debate this subject today. I believe that it should be a considered debate and that we should try to reach the maximum degree of agreement in all parts of the House.

    I begin by quoting something that the Leader of the House said in 1974 when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said:

    “I agree that disputes which lead to frequent and persistent stoppages in the newspaper industry have a special significance, in the sense that they touch upon the free flow of opinion. If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country.”—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1531.]

    That was said nearly four years ago, and the situation today is certainly a good deal more serious than it was then.
    There is the whole question of the financial loss of those who work in the industry. There is a loss of the profits which could be put into new investment by management and companies and there is a loss of pay which could, in certain circumstances, have gone to the people who works in the industry. Secondly, there have been considerable losses for the wholesale and retail newsagents, commonly called the CTNs—confectionery, tobacco and newsagents. These have been going out of business, not entirely for these reasons but partly because of them, at the rate of about 200 a week. Their numbers in the past four to five years have fallen from around 34,000 to about 27,000.

    The people who run those shops are important in our society. They open their shops at all hours of the day or night and they perform an extraordinarily useful service to the community. We must try in every way we can to help them run their businesses. They have made strong representations to me and, I have no doubt, to all hon. Members. There is an employment factor involved here, because if the CTNs go out of business at the present rate we shall be adding even further to our unemployment problems. That is something of which we must not lose sight.

    There are also many implications for advertising. I have received a number of complaints over the past few days about the effect that the uncertainty over the ​ printing of newspapers has on the whole advertising industry. It is a lucky thing that at the moment the television companies are fairly full of advertising, otherwise, national newspapers would be suffering a great deal more than they are. The newspapers are suffering, and this in itself has a considerable effect on industry and commerce. If a company cannot plan an advertising campaign with the launching of a new product and be certain that the advertising will be available at the right time, this disrupts the selling of the new product and means that companies tend to go to the medium with which they can be certain of getting advertising space.

    The position is even more damaging than that. People from overseas who have looked at this country and admired not only our free Press but the miraculous way in which we have distributed our newspapers over a long time see the present situation and regard it as symptomatic of our malaise. By inference, that damages the reputation of our country and its ability to compete. For all these reasons, it is right that we should debate this subject.

    There is no shortage of analyses of the problems. Most of the problems are familiar. A leading trade unionist said to me this week “Fleet Street is in a mess because both sides have made it so. Bad management has been chiefly responsible, but the unions have lost control at national level and union leaders have been stripped of their authority.” I put that statement to a leading manager in Fleet Street and he agreed with every word of it. This is not a situation in which we can say that there is a lack of analysis or diagnosis of the problem.

    Is the present situation inevitable? Is it getting worse? Where will it end? I do not believe that the current position is inevitable. Other industries facing technological change are doing so without the trauma affecting Fleet Street. What is more—and we must be clear on this point—a lot of people are having to accept technological change who are a lot worse off and who have been offered much worse compensation than some of ‘the Fleet Street printers.

    I do not believe that it is inevitable that we should have got into this situation. Is the current position getting worse? I think that for the moment it is. It ​ is getting worse because, perhaps, management is at last starting to stand firm. Trade union leaders, trade unionists and Labour Members who know about this subject will know how important it is that when management has made a decision it should stick to it. I have had a good deal of evidence this week from trade union leaders to the effect that nothing has undermined their position so much as managers saying that they will do one thing and, 24 or 48 hours later, when they were frightened about losing circulation to some other newspaper, changing their mind and undercutting the position which the union leadership was trying to take in support of management.

    When I say that the situation is getting worse and that we are losing a larger number of papers because management is starting to stand firm, I must make another point. One of the circumstances of union ill discipline has been the changing pattern of newspaper ownership. About 20 years ago newspapers were small companies run by private individuals, and even if a publicly owned company was involved it was usually narrowly based on newspapers and treated by the newspaper proprietors as a private company. Now, individual companies have been steadily eliminated. Kemsley, Cadbury, Aitken and Astor have gone and, instead, newspapers are small parts of large, in some cases multinational, companies. There are Trafalgar House, Atlantic Richfield, the Thomson Organisation, Reeds, Pearson and so on.

    Because of the nature of control and because of the wealth of the parent companies, the top boards are not concerned so much either about ownership of newspapers or about the losses that standing up to strikes would involve for them. This will have the effect—it is already having such an effect—of more companies having the financial muscle to resist claims. The most obvious examples of this are The Observer and the Daily Express, where neither David Astor nor Max Aitken had the money to face strikes in the way that perhaps the present management is starting to do. This is an example of where union intransigence has brought its own reaction in terms of more powerful proprietors. Whether this is in the long-term interests of the Press is open to dispute. Whatever might be said about individual ​ proprietors, they knew all about the freedom of the Press. We shall have to wait and see whether the present proprietors know quite so much.

    Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

    I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I find it absolutely fascinating that he should develop this vital point of view. Would he not agree that one of the central problems is the fact that in the Fleet Street papers a great number of casuals are employed? The question of casual employment has always bedevilled every industry and has led to serious problems. The people who really want to solve the difficulties in Fleet Street should be thinking seriously about how to get away from casual employment in the industry.

    Mr. Prior

    This is obviously an important point. The casuals are very much part of the Sunday newspaper scene. They are people who have earned a pretty good screw during the week and want to pick up an extra £50 on a Saturday night by working for the Sundays. This is a general point, too. One of the things that has happened is that people no longer have a loyalty towards their papers. As a result, regrettably, the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred tends to occur.

    I draw the attention of the House to an extract from an excellent publication entitled “Programme for Action” which deals with the report of a body on which management and union leaders sit. There was full agreement on this report. Referring to the future of the industry and the programme’s package, it says:

    “To adopt this package is not therefore to accept the soft option. But rejection of it would result in titles continuing to fail as newspaper economies forced them out of business. The inevitable consequences would be compulsory redundancy with little or no advance warning to workers and unions. No Government aid would be available to workers and unions. New forms of printed communications utilising the new technology, if necessary, printed abroad, could compete more and more successfully with a diminishing range of British national newspapers.”

    That is the view of the joint standing committee for the national newspaper industry, which met to consider this problem.

    What advice and help should the House give? We all have a deep interest in the maintenance of a competitive free Press, giving a wide choice in political attitudes, analysis of the state of the nation, highbrow or lowbrow, sport or entertainment—the whole gamut. We have a deep interest in all of that. Certainly this “Programme for Action,” drawn up by the joint standing committee, points the way to the solution. I believe that a renewed effort should be made to gain its acceptance. Perhaps an attitude survey of shop-floor reaction, sponsored by management and unions, could show how better to get the message across.

    I want to look at the management side for a minute. I believe that the management of newspapers has been subject to less influence in industrial relations than perhaps the editorial columns have exerted on nearly every other interest in the country. I cannot help thinking to myself sometimes that, if only the management of the newspapers had subjected themselves to such editorial advice as we have been subjected to in the House or industry generally has been subjected to on various matters, they might not be in quite the mess that they are.

    There are one or two things that one can say. I believe that there is not enough involvement and participation at shop-floor level. There must be more down-the-line personnel involvement. It seems to me that too often when something goes wrong it is to the top man that people go, whereas in industry that sort of thing would not happen. There would be much more managerial content the whole way down the managerial line. There is nothing more damaging in industrial relations—I suppose that we all learn this the hard way—than strong words which are followed by weak action or sometimes by no action at all. That is a lesson that needs to be learnt by management too.

    On the union side—

    Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Prior

    Is not the hon. Gentleman going to take part in the debate? If he is, he had better make his own speech.

    Union leaders must reassert their undoubted authority. They must use their ​ strength, and, if necessary, they must get together in order to do so. They cannot go on saying, as I think they are inclined to do at present, “We are so fed up with Fleet Street that we’re washing our hands of what happens there”, because it is far too important. What happens in Fleet Street is vital nationally. Therefore, they must take a personal interest in what happens.

    I believe that union leaders have adopted a responsible attitude. I do not want to praise them, because if I did so I should do them no good. I think that they have adopted a responsible attitude, but I hope that they will exert all their pressures to make certain that they can achieve the necessary discipline. In this respect, what is absolutely vital is a proper disputes procedure. The disputes procedure laid down on pages 28 and 29 of the “Programme for Action” seems to me vital. It is a first-class document, one which should be followed.

    We cannot afford the constant disruptions. I think it is true to say that there has not been an official dispute in Fleet Street for some while. All the disputes have been unofficial.

    Next, I want to say a word to the workers and to quote to them words which were said to me the other day: “Unless there is an industry, there is nothing to fight about. If they go as they are at the moment, there will not be anything to fight about.”

    The vast majority of printers, as we all know them—we in this House probably know them better than most other people do—are decent people. What we see is the influence of the few being allowed to sway the many. It is not an unusual state of affairs where management has been weak. Those weaknesses can be exploited. There is no point in talking about holding pistols to the heads of these people or anything of that nature.

    I have tried to analyse the various problems dispassionately. I hope that a message can go out from the House today that we do not like what is going on. We recognise how damaging it is from the point of view of the industry, those who work in it and a free Press. We expect to see authority restored and common sense prevail. We are telling the industry, all sections of it, to get round the table again and sort it out, and sort it out quickly.

    I turn to another matter, which is much more a question for the provincial and magazine Press than for Fleet Street, but is also a matter of considerable concern. I refer to the whole question of the National Union of Journalists and the control it tries to exercise or might try to exercise were it to have a closed shop. I should like to put the matter in this way. One understands the problems of young journalists. One sees that in a number of provincial papers they have been badly paid. They see the much greater pay and much greater strength that perhaps the linotype operators have gathered for themselves, and they say to themselves “If they can do that as a result of a strong union, why can’t we have the same?”

    There is no doubt that in many respects a number of journalists in a number of newspapers have been badly paid, and they look to the closed shop as a means of giving them the collective strength that they feel they otherwise lack. I understand that, but there are too many examples now where a closed shop certainly could be used, and would be used, as a means of controlling what was published. In this respect I should like to quote from a leading article in The Times some months ago:

    “Rigid application of the closed shop in journalism creates an unacceptable risk of restraint upon liberty. Effective control of what is or is not printed would be put in the hands of a single politically active organisation. The NUJ would be able to decide who wrote for the press and to require its members to write in a particular way on pain of effective exclusion from their trade. The union’s present leaders may be fully determined never to exploit the powers that a closed shop would give them. But the political currents in the union are strong and it is impossible to be certain that the same will always be true.”

    That is why we on the Conservative Benches have stated that any Press charter should be firm about the right to join or not to join a union. What has happened to the Press charter? When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to bring a charter before the House?

    I now have a further suggestions to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have recently stated—at any rate, they have come out in the Press—the conditions for union membership agreements within certain Civil Service unions. I do not like closed shops, but if one is to have a closed shop the union membership agreement must be drawn in ​ a certain way to give freedom to individuals to decide whether they will pay union dues, pay to a charity or use some other means of paying.

    It seems to me that the conditions that the Government are laying down for union membership agreements for their own employees in the Civil Service are perfectly reasonable and suitable for the conditions of a union membership agreement, for example, in the newspaper industry, because it would give that freedom for the individual journalist to decide whether he wished to join a union. If he did not wish to join, he would not be subject to the pressures of discipline which the union might try to exert if he was writing material with which it disagreed.

    I believe, therefore, that the Government have another way out of this situation now, not just through the Press charter but through stating that they would support union membership agreements with the sorts of provision that they have discussed themselves and which we have been talking about for some time. That is another thing on which I believe that the Government should now give a lead.