UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I was pleased to see that the Government will actively consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Peter Walker – 1974 Speech on Industry and Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Walker, the then Conservative MP for Worcester, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    I congratulate the Minister, first, on being returned to the House of Commons in what was considered to be a marginal constituency against a diversity of opponents and, secondly, on taking up his new and important Cabinet office. It is said that when Winston Churchill returned to the Admiralty a message was immediately radioed to the Fleet “Winston is back”. Unfortunately, two-thirds of what would have been the right hon. Gentleman’s fleet sailed off to other commands the moment he returned. I am not certain whether that was at their request or at the instigation of the Prime Minister. One thing is certain: it was not at the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Industry.

    It is surprising that such a change should have taken place with no comment yesterday by the Prime Minister and no comment today by the Secretary of State for Industry. When in the past considerable changes have taken place in the construction of Whitehall there has been in-depth discussion with the Civil Service and sometimes White Papers have been published. The fragmentation of the former Department of Trade and ​ Industry in this way without discussion and without consultation will result in some considerable disadvantages to the Government.

    I bring this to the Government’s attention in the hope that they will be able to overcome the harm which fragmentation will do to the regional set-up of the Department. During the last two or three years there has been a considerable strengthening in the quality and grade of staff at the regional offices, and this has had a considerable impact upon the development of industry in the regions. In the regional offices there is a combination of staff capable of applying the various facets of the Industry Act, who can look after the export potentialities of the region and the industrial development certificate policy and positively encourage small businesses. To weaken those regional offices by splitting them up between three Departments will prove to be a considerable disadvantage.

    As Secretary of State for Industry the right hon. Gentleman will find grave disadvantage in not having in his Department information about the export and import substitution potential that automatically comes from the trade side of Government. There were many instances where we applied the Industry Act on the basis of information that we had from the trade side of the Department. That will no longer be available to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Likewise, in the development of major industrial investment programmes, it was of tremendous advantage in the Department of Trade and Industry—for example, when we embarked upon the steel modernisation programme—to call in the steel plant managers and link them with the international potentialities of exporting steel plants on the back of a healthy domestic demand. That type of linkage between domestic demand in industry, for which the right hon. Gentleman will have responsibility, and export potential will be severely handicapped by the new structure.

    The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned monopolies and mergers and the importance of having a positive policy to pursue the proposals that he has in mind. I presume that monopolies and mergers are no longer his responsibility ​ as they have been moved to the new Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. In the old Department consumer aspects were looked into by the Minister responsible for consumer affairs; likewise, industrial policies and rationalisation aspects were very much concerned with the industry part of the Department. To have monopolies and mergers firmly with the consumer affairs side of government and not in the right hon. Gentleman’s hands will prove a considerable disadvantage.

    Another remarkable break-up has taken place as a result of the move without any form of consultation or national dialogue. The right hon. Gentleman will be responsible for the aircraft industry and the Secretary of State for Trade will be responsible for civil aviation. I am sure that the aircraft industry will be quick to tell him that its most important consideration is the procurement programme from the civil aviation side of what used to be the Department of Trade and Industry. Here again is an important break which will prove to the disadvantage of the future development of our economy.

    The right hon. Gentleman has said very little about inward investment. I think he will be advised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lever) that one of the most important aspects of any Government policy over the next few years will be the encouragement of inward investment into this country. The right hon. Gentleman has no international presence in his new post. To have no international presence at a time when we want to encourage inward investment will be a grave and serious disadvantage.

    I turn now to the Government’s outward investment policies. There may come a time when the Secretary of State for Industry should be actively engaged in encouraging outward investment from this country. The right hon. Gentleman’s new Department will not have the strength to carry out that function.

    Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the outgoing Government intended that there should be large foreign investment in the energy industry in this country and yet decided ​ to hive off the energy side from the Department of Trade and Industry?

    Mr. Walker

    I know of no decision to have large outside investment in the energy industry in this country. It was not the policy of the then Government.

    On all these aspects there is no doubt that seemingly this decision was taken not on the basis of any logic about Whitehall or any improvement in the efficiency of developing commercial strategy, but on the basis of trying to find separate Cabinet posts for three Ministers.

    I welcome the Prime Minister’s approach in 1974 as opposed to the approach that he made on forming a Government in 1964. We do not know whether this new approach is due to the size of his minority or to the lessons that he learned from the experiences of 1964. It is interesting to note that in 1964 his first task was to maximise the importance of the £800 million deficit, and, having got this out of perspective, his actions in increasing consumer demand soon shattered confidence abroad. He has not made that mistake on this occasion. Yesterday he recited how stagnation, the rising unemployment that took place in the regions during the period of the last Labour Government and the lack of achieving the social service success that he endeavoured to obtain was the price that he paid for the manner in which he handled the situation then.

    The Prime Minister was right to emphasise the record export order books of British industry at this time. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Industry today followed the Prime Minister’s example by correctly emphasising the potential opportunities that now exist instead of emphasising that the size and magnitude of the deficit on trade which faces the country has to be met by massive deflationary policies.

    Now that the Government recognise the true reality of the deficit on our trade, resulting from a massive increase in the importation of new machinery, vital raw materials and, the biggest factor, the enormous increase in world prices, they must consider the approach that they will bring to the economic scene. There is no doubt that if we had pursued the policies that the then Opposition advocated of going for heavy deflationary ​ policies over the last 12 months, we would have crippled the investment potentiality of this country for a generation. It was right not to pursue that policy.
    I hope that the Government will genuinely pursue the twin objectives outlined by the Secretary of State for Industry of exports and investment as the two main priorities.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

    As a man who started his business career by running off with the Co-op divi and finishing up in Government, leaving us with a deficit on 31st December of £2,348 million, and rising every minute, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his more relaxed way of life, he will now be going back to Slater-Walker to reorganise its many disparate interests not only here but abroad?

    Mr. Walker

    No. I shall be staying here to listen to the eloquent speeches so constantly made by the hon. Gentleman. One would miss his wit far too much if one lost any opportunity of being in the House.

    I wonder how the Government hope to give priority to exports and investment when they are already advocating having no statutory wages policy. To have a free-for-all in wages, to increase taxation on potential savers in this country and to increase consumer demand by various items of public expenditure in combination is a policy which will be of considerable disadvantage both to exports and to investment.

    I hope that the new Secretary of State for Trade will get into perspective the importance of Common Market trade to the future of our export programme. When the previous Labour Government left office our exports to Common Market countries were £2,355 million a year. They are now over £4,000 million a year, comprising nearly a third of our total exports. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Trade, with his hostility to Europe, must be very careful in his negotiations not to endanger that considerable proportion of our trade. Not only is it a substantial proportion, but it is one of the fastest rising areas of our trade. Whereas our exports nationally went up by 26 per cent. last year, our exports to the Community went up by 39 per ​ cent. It was a major contribution to our export drive, and for the Government to negotiate on Europe on a basis that would handicap that trade would be of considerable disadvantage to us.

    I hope, too, that, on the question of exports, the Government will pay far greater respect to new markets in the world—such as Iran—than they did when they were in opposition. I say that because these markets in the Middle East will be of considerable importance to our future trade potentiality. The comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite when we were negotiating trade agreements with Iran were anything but friendly and tended to be hostile to such arrangements, and I hope that there will be moves by the Government to repair the bad reputation which they have in those countries.

    I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry will do everything in his power to encourage the maximum increase in export prices because there is an immense opportunity for us to increase and improve our export performance. Our goods are exceedingly competitive in world markets, and it must be in our interests to raise prices to the maximum levels obtainable in those markets. That means that the profits of the companies concerned will rise. When ICI declared record profits recently many hostile remarks were made about them, but I hope that the Government will recognise that a great deal of that increase resulted from exports. It would be disastrous if the Government were to do anything other than encourage the maximum profits from export markets, but so far there is no indication that they intend to encourage exporters in that way.

    The Government must encourage investment. The Secretary of State for Industry said that a prime task would be to get far more investment into British industry and re-equip it. The Prime Minister has described himself as the custodian of the manifesto. Fortunately, judging from his speech yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman interprets his rôle of custodian as that of seeing that the manifesto’s proposals are kept under lock and key, and we commend him on that decision.

    I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry realises that real damage is done to investment by the existence of nationalisation proposals. One cannot illustrate ​ that better than by considering the record of investment in the steel industry. Yesterday the Prime Minister mentioned steel as one of the potential shortages which could handicap future economic growth. Any student of the steel industry will recognise that from 1964 to 1966 steel investment went down from £180 million a year to £50 million because of the threat of nationalisation. During the period after nationalisation the industry was unable to start its investment programme, and that meant that from 1963 to 1970 steel investment was more than halved, and not under me but under you. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Speaker, because you certainly would not be guilty of such policies. The Prime Minister was responsible for the biggest drop in steel investment since the war, and the Conservative Government inherited the problem of the lack of steel capacity.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

    The right hon. Gentleman was most kind to refer to what I said yesterday about the steel shortage. I said that it was due to the three-day week. I cannot understand why no one from the Opposition Front Bench has mentioned that in this debate.

    Mr. Walker

    If the right hon. Gentleman had taken an interest in these matters during the week before the General Election he would have known that long before the three-day week was introduced there was a shortage of steel because of the lack of investment due to his policies. The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that no nationalisation proposals would be introduced without going through the full parliamentary process. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that no nationalisation proposal could go through the full parliamentary procedure in this Parliament. He has, by that commitment, shown that during this Parliament he does not intend to proceed with any nationalisation proposals. If that is so, it would be in the interests of encouraging investment in the aircraft, shipbuilding, pharmaceutical, road haulage and machine tool industries if the Government were to make it clear that they have no intention of introducing such proposals.

    Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pharmaceutical industry. Is he aware ​ that 75 per cent. of National Health Service purchases are from foreign-owned companies?

    Mr. Walker

    That industry is one of our major exporters, and I believe that if the Secretary of State for Industry consults the workers before introducing nationalisation proposals he will not proceed with its nationalisation.

    Mr. Benn

    As the right hon. Gentleman was associated with the take-over of a number of firms without any pretence of consultation with the people whose futures were at stake, perhaps he will recognise that our proposals for public ownership follow long and deep consultations with the workers involved and that in every case the industry concerned has suffered from private management.

    Mr. Walker

    I still remember the telegram that I received from the shop stewards of Rolls-Royce about the complete lack of consultation by the right hon. Gentleman on his nationalisation proposals. That was to be done without any consultation with anybody, and originally without compensation. We know how shallow is the consultation by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side.

    Nationalisation proposals cannot be anything but a discouragement to investment in a number of vital spheres, such as the machine tool industry. I hope that, in the climate of this Parliament, instead of hiding behind the words in the Gracious Speech and saying that the full parliamentary process will be adopted for any nationalisation proposals, the Government will come clean and say that they have no intention of nationalising this industry during this Parliament.

    The Government will have to deal with the manner in which they will raise money for their proposals to increase public expenditure. They must face the reality of some of the myths which they created when in opposition about where the money would come from. There was the myth that it would all come from North Sea oil. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State for Industry say this afternoon that we should have to wait for that and that people must not rely on it too much as it is very much in the future, because during the election campaign, whenever it was asked where the money would come from, it was said that ​ more money would be obtained from North Sea oil. The Government now know that it will be several years before there will be a chance of taxing profits from North Sea oil, because it will not be available for about that period.

    The same comment applies to company profits. Another bogy was that the big corporations would be taxed far more than they are now, but, with dividend restraint and price restrictions limiting profit margins at home, the only possible scope for increasing taxation is in company profits made from exports, and that is not the way to encourage people to export.

    On the question of capital gains, the Financial Times ordinary index is lower than it was four years ago or 10 years ago, and the Government will not have a great source of revenue there. The fact is that if the Government embark on the heavy increases in taxation which they have in mind they will have to tax savings, and that is not the way to encourage investment.

    The Secretary of State will soon discover that with the present problem of liquidity and of trying to compete abroad it is vital to maintain a healthy capital market here. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that he will lose the confidence of industry, which is vital to his programme to increase investment. In addition, he will lose confidence abroad. I hope that the more commonsense approach to the problem of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Central in his new rôle will influence the decisions that the Government take.

    During our three and a half years in office we accepted that the Government had many functions to perform in a modern free enterprise society. The Government have a duty to pursue fiscal policies that will encourage growth. They must help shape the economy so that it is equipped to benefit as fully as possible from the changing pattern of world trade. The Government must set parameters for the protection of the natural environment and improving wherever possible the manmade environment. They have to decide upon the proportion of resources to be allocated to the social services. They have to provide an education system that not only enriches people’s minds throughout their lives but opens up more possibilities of equality of opportunity. They have to see that the framework of law in which the corporation operates is equable, open and fully accountable to the nation as a whole. They have to see that the power of the consumer is strong enough to have its proper impact upon the quality and diversity of products.

    The Government have to see that forward-looking regional policies are pursued so that the fruits of the new capitalism are not concentrated on any one region but are shared fairly throughout the nation. They have to see that training and retraining facilities for those engaged in industry are tackled to meet the challenges of technological change.

    In three and a half years we did bring growth back to the economy; we did help to reshape the economy to meet new challenges overseas; we did bring about a build-up of the major investment programme from which the economy will now benefit.

    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

    Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituency for restoring growth to that area by giving it intermediate status?

    Mr. Walker

    It was indeed the regions of the North-West and North-East and Wales and Scotland, where unemployment was rising during the last years of the previous Labour Government, which benefited most from the growth in the economy which we achieved. We devoted far more of the nation’s resources to the social services and education than our predecessors did. We prepared the legislation to make corporations more accountable. We substantially improved the power of the consumer and we brought many new jobs and opportunities to the regions most in need of them.

    But in all these areas we have much further progress to make, and it is our intention to use such period of opposition as is available to us to prepare for further progress towards the creation of a society enjoying all the advantages from man’s enterprise and initiative and harnessing the economic growth he creates to bringing about a better quality of society.

  • Tony Benn – 1974 Speech on Industry and Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Benn, the Secretary of State for Industry, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1974.

    In common with all other Ministers my task will be to prepare, to discuss and then, subject to Cabinet priorities, to bring before Parliament the proposals put forward to the country by the Government. First, however, I should like to deal with the immediate situation. The main task facing the Government on taking office was to settle the miners’ dispute, to lift the energy restrictions and to allow British industry to get back to full-time working by ending the three-day week, which we argued was quite unnecessary. These three objectives have already been achieved. Although we shall never catch up entirely with the production lost during that period—nor will the wages lost be replaced—at least the recovery period has begun.

    In looking forward there are some encouraging features which I think the House would wish to know. First, output held up better than was feared, and since many firms gave priority to export customers the loss of exports was less than might have happened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be reporting on the resumption of power supplies to industry and the recovery of coal production and oil supplies.

    For my part, I can tell the House that the steel industry should be back to near normal by April. Order books are ​ healthy and most of industry should be working normally within a month, although there are bound to be some sectors, heavily dependent on component supplies, whose work programmes were severely disrupted and will take longer. Some bottlenecks of supplies are bound to arise, and there may be cash flow difficulties.

    My Department is at the disposal of firms which may be affected and they should get in touch with the regional offices or with the Department centrally if they want help. Some hon. Members have already raised individual difficulties with me where these have arisen in their constituencies, and I hope that other hon. Members who have problems reported to them will also feel free to get in touch with me or my fellow Ministers.

    I wish to pay tribute to the co-operation in industry in minimising the difficulties that have been experienced and to those who are now showing such determination in catching up with as much as possible of what has been lost and in getting production back to full swing.

    Even though the atmosphere has improved and the immediate recovery prospects are better than might have been expected, it would be totally wrong to underestimate the magnitude of the task of industrial renewal which now confronts Britain, British industry and hence Parliament itself.

    The policies which we developed in Opposition and put before the people in the election were designed to meet problems in the national interest. They now have an added relevance, for the mining strike masked the other more fundamental economic and industrial problems to which oil price increases have added an extra dimension. The prospects of national advantage that may accrue through the development of North Sea and Celtic Sea gas and oil are encouraging, but it would be foolish for any of us to suppose that all that has to be done is to mark time until we are saved by an oil bonanza which will return us to an era of automatic prosperity.

    Everybody recognises that Britain must concentrate on exports and on building a strong industrial base, without which we cannot furnish those exports. We also need investment in our energy and energy-saving programmes and to secure the ​ living standards and the public service provision to which our people are entitled.

    Let me turn to the problems of investment with which my Department is deeply concerned. On the industrial side the main immediate problems may arise from the fact that the three-day week, with its associated cash flow consequences, could lead to some deferment of investment plans. I must tell the House frankly that we cannot now count upon earlier estimates of an increase of 12 per cent. to 14 per cent. in manufacturing investment to be realised this year.

    Even if the lower figure of 12 per cent. had been reached it would only have restored the position to that level which we had in 1970, when the last Labour Government left office.

    Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

    As the right hon. Gentleman has outlined the matter so concisely, will he give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will encourage profits so that he can get the investment from industry and thus be able to get what he wants?

    Mr. Benn

    If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the argument in my own way he will see that I shall turn to that question. He may also note that the fall in profits in 1974 will be attributable to the three-day week which he and his colleagues introduced in the pursuit of their policy.

    Industrialists and trade union leaders have long agreed that our long-term prospects depend on getting investment levels nearer to those that have been achieved by other major industrial countries. We must use what we have better and select what we need in quality, and see that the total figures rise.

    The problems of using our existing investment effectively and of getting the level up explain why the Gracious Speech referred to the

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

    These matters have already been touched on in general terms when the TUC and CBI came to 10 Downing Street and were raised when the CBI came to see me, and at the NEDC meeting on Monday. They will be discussed in detail with the nationalised industries, major companies and ​ individual trade unions at almost all the meetings which I shall be having with them.

    Investment will also feature very much in the many discussions we hope to have in Scotland and Wales, and the English regions. This explains why high priority has to be given to the stimulation of regional development. My colleagues in the Department and I look forward to these discussions.

    As the House knows, there is a dual vulnerability in development areas in the redundancy among managers as well as workers which may occur either through under-investment or the failure to attract new investment. When these companies are also victims of take-overs and asset stripping the problems are intensified.

    With regard to the regional employment premium, we shall at least maintain the existing arrangement while considering further possibilities for the future.

    It is often argued that we cannot get investment up until confidence has been established. Obviously, the two go together. But I invite the House to consider for a moment just what confidence really is. It has been interpreted in the past simply and solely as constituting political support of the City of London or the international financial community in the Government of the day, and their policies, with the implication that whatever price they might exact in return for that support had to be paid by Governments adopting policies, however harsh, dictated by them.

    Obviously, any nation must enjoy international confidence, but if there is one lesson we have learned over the past three months it is that the confidence of working people in their Government and in their own future is also an essential ingredient in national confidence, and for that matter in international confidence, too.

    The last Government initially enjoyed the confidence of the City and industry—a confidence gained partly in return for its commitment to policies which were hostile to the trade unions. In the ensuing confrontation, it should be noted, the last Government lost the confidence of working people and then some of its own supporters as well.

    This Government put to the electors a new social contract as the main plank in ​ their programme, not only because we believe—[interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene I shall be happy to give way.

    Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is talking nonsense when he suggests that policies which encouraged the City and industry were against the interest of the workers, because it was recognised that both have to go together? The right hon. Gentleman’s father remembered that capital and labour must go together and must not be disturbed by such words as he is using.

    Mr. Benn

    The hon. Gentleman at least amplified the monosyllabic insults he was casting by a rather inadequate forecast of the speech he might hope to make. I hope that the House will allow these matters to be discussed, because the characteristic of the past three months has been a breakdown in confidence in the country, which was due—this is the argument we put forward and adhered to—to the view the Government adopted towards workpeople and their problems over a wide range of policy.

    This Government put to the electors a new social contract as the main plank in their programme, not only because we believe in the elements in that contract but because we do not believe that confidence can be restored without such a new contract based upon policies designed to bring about a shift in the balance of power and wealth. The new social contract which we are set upon achieving has implications for industrial policy as well as for taxation policy, housing policy or social policy.

    In developing our industrial strategy for the period ahead, we have the benefit of much experience. Almost everything has been tried at least once—[An HON. MEMBER: “Including you.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to me, he will hear me say that we have the benefit of a great deal of experience which we can draw on in developing our policies.
    Successive Governments have tried rigid centralised controls and an abandonment of controls. They have tried restricting expansion to achieve a foreign surplus, and a dash for growth at the expense of a huge payments deficit. Apart from all our macro-economic solutions, we have been through the whole gamut of micro-industrial policies, from propping up lame ducks to killing them off, and back again.

    The one constant element throughout this long history of policy has been the fact that these alternatives have been largely centrally decided and imposed and have been seen as problems of economics and management rather than as problems of politics and consent. Indeed, it is a curious paradox that the most rigid and comprehensive armoury of central controls ever instituted over the entire range of the British economy came from a party dedicated to free enterprise and market forces, which, when they were applied, developed in a direction which threatened and weakened the authority of Parliament.

    Any constructive long-term industrial strategy must be developed by the longer, slower route of real consultation and power sharing, all done more openly. There is no alternative. I have no intention of repeating the tragedy of the long and damaging confrontation with labour which has occurred over the past three years by setting out on a long and equally damaging confrontation with the CBI and the management of British industry. I am not seeking a woolly consensus that dodges difficult issues or delays necessary adjustments by covering them up, but it is central to my argument that the most difficult industrial issues and the necessary adjustments that everyone in Britain must make can be made only after the most detailed and painstaking joint discussion. It is no use asking people in industry to act responsibly if they are the victims of decisions taken irresponsibly.

    People, including workers and managers, are entitled to know the choices before the decisions are made and to feel that those decisions are taken in the interests of the community. Workers up to and including skilled industrial management, and Government, with their even wider responsibilities to the nation, are inextricably bound up together, and the relationship between all three must reflect that reality.

    Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

    May we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade—whoever will have ​ the responsibility—will be taking an early opportunity to issue a Green Paper for discussion on the two-tier structure of companies and workers’ participation therein?

    Mr. Benn

    As the previous Labour Government introduced the concept of a Green Paper and managed to develop a system of open government that was closed in many areas by its successors, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that when we talk about the desirability of open discussion that is in line with our practice, and certainly with our intentions. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend’s Department, because I am talking about my own, but it is part of my argument that if decisions are to succeed they must be reached after full discussion.

    Disengagement has been tried and has failed. What we must decide now is the nature of the engagement that there must be, the rules that will govern it, the consultation that will accompany it, and the national purposes it must serve.
    In hard, practical terms, there must be as close a relationship between the Department of Industry and the trade union movement as has long existed and must remain between my Department and industrial management. It will be my firm resolve to develop those relationships with the TUC and national trades unions, and through them with workers at the shopfloor level, to the same degree as now exists with the CBI, top industrial management and local management.
    Bringing the workers into industrial discussions and planning at Government level alongside management is a much bigger task than might appear, and it will take time. Consultative arrangements on this scale do not now exist. As they come into operation, they will necessarily affect the flow of industrial decisions that have hitherto been based upon the one-sided contacts with industrial management and the City.

    It might be argued that if workers who are likely to be affected by a wide range of industrial decisions are really to be consulted before those decisions are reached, the pace of decision making will be slowed down. That is true, but the compensating advantage is that the decisions will be more likely to be right and more likely to be acceptable.

    Arbitrary decisions followed by predictable resistance and long-term frustration constitute an even more lengthy and expensive process. Executive management is just as concerned with this problem.

    Who knows what would have happened if some of the skill and energy generated by the Clydeside shipyard workers during their campaign for the right to work had been available more directly to influence Government decisions about the shipbuilding industry, or had been released to serve that industry much earlier still?

    In inviting constructive contributions from workers as well as national trade union officers before industrial policy decisions are made—and that is what I am doing—we shall necessarily be obliged to consider very seriously what it is that they are saying to us. It is amazing that in 1974 it should be necessary to make a conscious decision to invite systematically the views of workers in addition to receiving the opinions of those who own or manage our industrial enterprises, with whom consultations will and must continue.

    Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those workers in industries affected by the threat of nationalisation will have the right to be consulted on the question whether they wish to be nationalised?

    Mr. Benn

    The hon. Gentleman had better allow me to continue with my speech. If he will cast his mind back over the history of public ownership he will recall that it was the miners and the railwaymen who campaigned continuously for the public ownership of their industries and, indeed, that the policy of denationalisation to which some members of the Opposition were attracted was frustrated by the knowledge that, whatever may be the difficulties in the public sector, the commitment of those who work in the public sector to its continuation is very deep. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue with my speech he will see the answer that I propose to give to the question that he has put.

    Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

    I welcome the Minister’s conversion to the policy of the Liberal Party. Should not one of the policies to which he has just referred also be applied to nationalised industries?

    Mr. Benn

    I am coming to the proposals, but neither I nor my party share the proposals on industrial democracy that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, because we believe them to be a form of window dressing. I hope to carry him with me—[Laughter.]—or perhaps the hon. Gentleman would carry me with him—in considering the need for much closer consultation between Government and the trade union movement in the areas of policy for which Government are responsible. I am not discussing industrial democracy; I am talking about relations between my Department and the trade unions.

    I come now to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The industrial policy proposals which form the central part of the manifesto upon which the Labour Party fought the election were in fact produced after consultation with the trade unions—and others—on the basis that I have described. If the hon. Gentleman had waited, he would have heard me say that. If he looks at the proposals that have been published, for example, on the shipbuilding industry, he will find that they emerged after the longest and most detailed discussion with the representatives of the workers in the shipbuilding industry.

    I do not ask the House to accept our proposals just because they were arrived at by that process, or to neglect other interests that have to be considered, but I do recommend the proposals to the House for serious study and consideration, because they embody opinions that this nation cannot afford to ignore or set aside if a coherent industrial strategy is to be evolved.

    The provisions of the proposed Industry Act outlined in our programme, and which will form the basis of the Bill—
    “to consolidate and develop existing legislation”—

    to use the words of the Gracious Speech—contain provisions that Labour thinks necessary for such a strategy. The Bill would, for example, give to the Government, amongst other things, the power ​ to obtain information and to make it more generally available, the power to make industrial decision making more accountable, the power in the national interest to prevent foreign take-overs and the power to put in an official trustee to assume temporary control of any company which fails to meet its responsibilities to its workers, its customers or the community. All this stems from the experience of recent years.

    Similarly, the proposal to introduce planning agreements with major industrial enterprises not only meets the requirements of those who work in the firms concerned and those who live in the areas where jobs are hardest to come by but are also clearly in the national interest if we mean to harness our productive potential to the urgent tasks of industrial renewal.

    Even the proposals for the extension of public ownership, supposedly so controversial, emerge from those who work in industries where the present structure either condemns them to disorganised decline or hampers their prospects of long-term expansion and development. We are certainly not committed to the forms of public ownership which have been followed in the past, since neither the great public corporations nor the private company status of Rolls-Royce (1971) seem to us to constitute the ultimate wisdom of public sector management. The National Enterprise Board to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday is one such new form of public ownership which merits serious consideration.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the House of Commons will have the opportunity not only of debating and voting upon the Industry Bill but also upon any extensions of public ownership that will be submitted to Parliament for decision through the full parliamentary legislative process.

    When the provisions of the Industry Bill are published they will be seen to be founded upon precedents created in many cases by the previous Government, but the provisions of the Bill, by contrast, will tend towards a dispersal of power rather than its centralisation. This, too, will be the keynote of any proposals for real industrial democracy that may in due time come before Parliament. I very much hope that the House will reserve ​ its judgment upon all these proposals until it has had a chance to study them, and that hon. Members will relate what is put before them to their experience in their own constituencies.

    My experience, both as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a former Minister with similar responsibilities to the ones I now exercise, has highlighted some of the misuse and abuse of industrial and financial power at the expense of professional managers and workers, and such gaps in the network of public accountability we intend to fill.
    This, then, is the way in which I intend to approach my task as Industry Secretary. The proposals that I shall put forward will all be based upon proper consultation, and will be designed to meet the national interest, and on that basis I shall seek the support of the House for them. The issues of public policy that they raise will all be brought out into the open for real debate in public in the House of Commons, where the power of decision lies and must lie.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2015 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Conservative MP for Richmond, in the House of Commons on 11 June 2015.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my first contribution to this House, and may I take this opportunity to commend all the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today on both sides of the House?

    It may surprise my hon. Friends to learn that part of me is a little sad to be here, because the fact that I am standing here means that this Chamber has said goodbye to one of its finest parliamentarians, my predecessor the right hon. William Hague.

    William enjoyed a distinguished career over 26 years. He oversaw a landmark Bill to improve rights for the disabled, led our party and served as Foreign Secretary. But his true mark can be found at home in Richmond. He was an outstanding local MP, as well as an outstanding Yorkshireman.​

    I once arranged a visit to a tiny, remote village and imagined that, for once, I might outdo my predecessor. On arrival, I was told that not only had he held a surgery in the village recently, but that the Foreign Secretary had arrived in a Harrier jet having flown in from a meeting with the President of the United States.

    Some have wondered about William Hague’s future. Perhaps he will heed the advice of his Prime Minister who suggested he ought to become the new James Bond. In the Prime Minister’s own words:

    “he’s fit, he’s healthy, he does Yoga, he can probably crack a man’s skull between his knee caps.”

    That is hard to beat, but I did find a scintilla of encouragement on the campaign trail. Wandering through an auction market, I was introduced to a farmer as “the new William Hague”. He looked at me, quizzically, then said, “Ah yes, Haguey! Good bloke. I like him. Bit pale, though. This one’s got a better tan.”

    In today’s debate on Europe, we should remember that, as leader, William Hague campaigned to prevent Britain from joining the single European currency and instead to keep the pound. His judgment looks even more excellent today than it did then.

    We will miss his oratory, wit and intelligence, and I know that the whole House will join me in wishing him well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

    Sadly, William Hague’s predecessor, the late Lord Brittan, is no longer with us. Fortunately, however, Lord Brittan’s predecessor, Sir Timothy Kitson, still lives locally and his years of dedicated service are remembered fondly.

    The constituency of Richmond is known for its remarkable natural beauty. In the east lie the North Yorkshire moors and in the west sit the Yorkshire dales, with their distinctive dry stone walls, stone barns and softly rolling valleys. In fact, admiration for my constituency has even spread to the other side of the English channel, which is why, last year, the remote splendour of Wensleydale and Swaledale became part of the Tour de France.

    Interlaced with this natural beauty is a constant reminder of our nation’s heritage. Richmond castle sits magnificently at the heart of the constituency. Built by William the Conqueror, it has witnessed centuries of our nation’s history unfolding. Further afield in Great Ayton, Captain James Cook grew up and left Yorkshire to explore the world.

    I am also deeply honoured to represent our soldiers, airmen and their families living at RAF Leeming and at Catterick garrison, our largest Army base. We are home to the historic Green Howards, who served in the Napoleonic Wars, the Normandy landings and Afghanistan. I will never forget that so many of my constituents have risked their lives to protect our nation so that we may debate here in peace today.

    In spite of all this, the most remarkable aspect of my constituency is the strength, warmth and independent spirit of our communities. I am fiercely proud to represent them. And although I am not from Yorkshire, they were immensely relieved to learn I was not from Lancashire either!

    I intend to be a champion for the causes of the countryside. I want my hard-working rural constituents to have the strong public services they deserve and every opportunity to prosper.​

    Our excellent hospital, the Friarage, serves a sparse area of 1,000 square miles, with some patients travelling over an hour and a half to reach it. I shall be a loud voice for ensuring that our local hospital remains strong.

    Our rural schools require fair education funding so that they can remain the beating hearts of our villages. I shall be relentless in pushing for better broadband and better mobile phone coverage. The farmers who feed us, proud stewards of our landscape, are too often taken for granted and left alone to battle regulation. Many of our small businesses are making significant exports, and I am determined to help them to give Yorkshire an even bigger place on the map of the world than it already has—if that is possible!

    My grandparents arrived in this country with little. My parents, now a GP and a pharmacist, grew up wanting a better future for their children. Today, I have the enormous privilege of standing here as a Member of Parliament. I owe a great debt to our country for what it has done for my family: showing tolerance, providing opportunities and rewarding their hard work.

    A great man once remarked that “some of you might not be here in 30 or 40 years” before reminding his audience that decisions made today shape the future for the next generation.

    I believe in a compassionate Britain that provides opportunity and values freedom. I hope I can play a small part in ensuring that our great nation continues to hold to those enduring values.

  • Patrick Mayhew – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Patrick Mayhew, the then Conservative MP for Royal Tunbridge Wells, in the House of Commons on 3 April 1974.

    No maiden speaker can rise in the House of Commons without a considerable feeling of alarm. To borrow a phrase from Clause 2 of this Bill, I feel that my “instruction, training and supervision” have been woefully inadequate for the task.

    My constituency has been carved out of the old constituency of Tonbridge and the old constituency of Ashford. I am the successor of two distinguished and long-serving Members. The portion that I have gained from the old Tonbridge constituency was for 17 years represented by Mr. Dick Hornby. Many hon. Members have told me since my arrival in what high regard he was held here—a regard which is matched by that of his constituents. The same is true, of course, of my predecessor for the Ashford portion of the constituency, still happily in this House as the right hon. Member for the new constituency of Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who has for many years served with the greatest distinction and industry the interests of what are now my constituents. If I can approach the standard of service that they have given I shall be doing a very good job. I hope in time that I may aspire to that height.

    My constituency extends over a far wider area than its name might suggest. Although it takes its name from the gracious town of Tunbridge Wells it extends from country villages in the west, like Speldhurst, right over to other villages like Benenden, Sandhurst and Hawkhurst in the east. It contains little industry but much agriculture.

    Agriculture is not to be brought within the ambit of the Bill but I am sure that all hon. Members with a knowledge of agriculture will agree that the problems of the safety, health and welfare of its employees need no less careful scrutiny and care than the problems of the factory worker. I hope that in due course they will receive it.

    I welcome the Bill because it provides an opportunity for Parliament to bring within the ambit of a single piece of legislation all the safety, health and welfare problems of those working in the factories. Those who have had to deal in their private or professional lives with the problems of this nature in industry recognise the jungle into which the law has strayed. An hon. Member opposite has already referred to the standard textbook of Redgrave on the Factory Acts and to Mr. Munkman’s work on employer’s liability. The editors of those works do their best to lead the way through this jungle, but all who have to deal professionally with these problems will welcome the Bill as a fresh start on integrating all the legislation which will eventually apply, whether immediately under the provisions of the Bill or under regulations made under it.

    I hope that safety committees can become universal. In training lies one of the most fruitful possibilities for reducing the terrible toll of accident and injury which so many hon. Members have mentioned. Statistics are bad enough, but when one has to see the physical injuries that are inflicted in a moment of carelessness and whose consequences can remain with the victim for the rest of his life and perhaps with his family, with terrible financial consequences, one has brought home to one the urgency of the problem.

    It is true that many accidents are caused by negligence or breach of their statutory duty by employers, but one should not suppose that nearly all of them are. Many are caused by a moment’s carelessness, or perhaps the taking of a short cut towards the end of a day by a workman who is doing a boring job and who, as the hours have gone by, has become a victim of apathy, has, perhaps, become sleepy and bored.

    I believe that it is in the sector of training that there is the best chance of making workpeople more safety conscious than they are in many cases. Of course it is true that some employers connive at machines being operated with the safety guards not in position, for example. The majority do not, but there are many who do. If greater attention is paid to training in safety matters there will be far fewer workpeople who will want to operate machines in that dangerous condition, notwithstanding that it may be easier to operate them without the safety guards in position.

    I hope, therefore, that great attention will be paid to the provision of safety committees, and to the operating of those committees, so that everyone undergoes training, and that the provision for proper instruction and training which is referred to in Clause 2(2) of the Bill will be part of the responsibility of the safety committee. I mean by that that I hope that it will have a part in devising and providing the training. If these committees can be brought into programmes of training and instruction, that would be a very good thing.

    The second point is that a great deal of attention must be paid to the problem of enforcing the obligations which the Bill lays down, primarily upon the employer but also upon the workman. My experience has been that, while making every allowance for the fact that the Factory Inspectorate is understaffed, the manner in which decisions are taken whether to prosecute in the case of a breach of obligation is in some cases almost capricious. In many cases it appears to have been taken where there has been a lot of publicity, or a very tragic accident and, perhaps, a death, but where the case against the employer on breach of duty has been very thin; whereas in many other cases of flagrant breach, where there can scarcely have been any defence against prosecution, no prosecution has taken place. That is so in many cases that one has come across where warnings have been given and matters have been brought to the attention of employers which fully merited a prosecution. We must have a much tougher standard on the part of an increased and expanded Factory Inspectorate than has been the case for many years past.

    Mention has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) of a possible change in the law following the report of Lord Pearson’s Royal Commission. We may have—I express no view on it at this stage—a system of non-fault liability replacing our present system, in which one has to prove in common law negligence on the part of the employer or breach of statutory duty in order to found a claim for civil liability. If we have a non-fault system of liability as a result of recommendations of Lord Pearson’s Commission then all the more will it be necessary for the Factory Inspectorate to take a far tougher line and for there to be more prosecutions in the case of breach; because the discipline and sanction that the employers’ liability insurance companies to some extent provide at present will have gone. I hope, therefore, that great attention will be paid to the question of enforcement.

    I should like to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Wilson), who drew attention to the words so far as is reasonably practicable where they apply in the clauses at the beginning of the Bill and which lay down the obligations and duties of employers. Taking Clause 2, the hon. Gentleman thought that it would be proper to delete those words so as to make an absolute liability rest upon employers. As I understood it, he applied that to all the early clauses of the Bill where those duties are set out. I can only say that one has to remember that this portion of the Bill is imposing a criminal liability upon employers and not a civil liability. I should be very sorry indeed to see legislation which made the employer strictly liable for any circumstance where it could be shown that the workman was not at the given moment safe or that he did not have risks to his health at any given moment. To impose strict liability would be to make him an insurer, and that seems to be wholly foreign to our concept of criminal law.

    Lastly, I should like to emphasise and support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North when he drew attention to Clauses 39 and 41, where the burden of proof whether something is reasonably practicable is laid upon the employer, and then, in Clause 41, a defence is provided for him whereby if he shows that he has exercised “all due diligence” he can avoid conviction. The words “all due diligence” do seem to have the makings of a lawyer’s picnic. We are all used to the concept of reasonable care. It is well understood in the courts. It has been developed in a way which takes account of changing standards and problems. The words “all due diligence” pose the question of how much diligence is due. I hope that consideration will be given to amending that phraseology.

    I am sure that much can be done in Committee to improve the Bill. Nevertheless I warmly welcome it. Our industry is the mainstay of our economy and the livelihood of our nation depends upon it. The Bill provides a means of safeguarding more effectively the lives of those who serve industry.

  • Zarah Sultana – 2020 Speech on Coventry IKEA Store Closure

    Below is the text of the speech made by Zarah Sultana, the Labour MP for Coventry South, in the House of Commons on 13 February 2020.

    I am very pleased to have secured my first Adjournment debate, and on a topic of real importance to my constituency. The Tuesday before last, IKEA announced that it will be closing its flagship store in Coventry this summer, putting 352 jobs at risk. The store is in the city centre, at the northernmost point of my constituency. The announcement came out of the blue for many, including its workers.

    Coventrians have been in touch with me to express their shock and sadness at the announcement. Over 3,300 people have signed an online petition calling for the store to stay open. People have expressed their “devastation” at its loss, seeing it as “an iconic part” of the city’s landscape. It has been part of the city’s scene since 2007, when it became IKEA’s first city centre shop. It is indeed distinctive; its blue and grey walls, standing seven floors tall, can be seen from a distance. Since it opened, it has become a major site in the city’s shopping ecosystem, attracting people from across the region to the heart of Coventry. Its closure will be felt hard by the city—mostly, of course, by the workers and their families, who risk their livelihoods being devastated, but also by the many people who enjoyed spending time in its café, the small businesses that benefited from the people it attracted to the city, and the many students who relied upon it to fit out their university rooms. A friend even told me how sorely she would miss its meatballs.

    The closure speaks to two much broader trends that have significance for Coventry and beyond. The first is the rise and fall of industry and the effects of what we now see in Coventry and across the midlands and the north: deindustrialisation. Where we now have low-paid and insecure retail jobs, there was once strongly unionised, relatively well-paid and stable employment.

    Industry has always come and gone in Coventry. As with capitalism generally, it uses, exploits and discards working people as it pleases. This was true with the textile industry in the 17th century, which began with the labour of Huguenot refugees and at its height employed 25,000 people in the city, only later to crash and leave workers ruined. It was also true of the manufacturing of cycles and clocks, which in the late 19th and early 20th century became the backbone of the city’s industry. By the mid-20th century it was the motor industry that was booming, this time on the back of Irish migrants, and it provided the city’s working class with work.

    By the 1970s, Jaguar, Standard-Triumph and Alvis all had manufacturing plants in what was then dubbed “Britain’s Detroit”. With it there came good, unionised jobs and Coventry enjoyed relative prosperity. However, as had happened to the industries before it, at the whims of bosses in search of cheaper labour, much of the motor industry moved abroad, again leaving the city’s working class abandoned. Unemployment exceeded 20%, and by the early 1990s discontent triggered riots across the city. This abandonment was felt so ​much that it is even said that the city’s very own The Specials based their classic “Ghost Town” on the sense of loss felt in the city.

    The city has never fully recovered from deindustrialisation because today there are not the mass, well-paid, highly-skilled and secure employment opportunities for kids growing up in Coventry. This is clearly shown by the fact that where the IKEA store stands today there once stood the site of a General Electric Company factory.

    Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in urgent need of a clear strategy to maintain and grow our city centres? The UK must remain a place of thriving town centres, with security and well-paid jobs, and places such as Coventry must be at the centre of this work.

    Zarah Sultana

    I thank my hon. Friend for making a really important point. I will be coming to the decline of the high streets and regional investment in a moment.

    The General Electric Company factory was a six-storey building, employing thousands of people in relatively decent and unionised work. With deindustrialisation, Coventry has seen secure and well-paid jobs replaced by insecure and poorly-paid work. This is the first story that the loss of the IKEA store speaks to. The second is the decline of the British high street.

    Coventry city centre, like all our city centres, is more than a place to shop. It is the beating heart of the city—a place that should provide community, culture and character. But in the last decade, the retail sector has been increasingly hard hit and empty shops are becoming commonplace. As one Coventrian said at the news of the store’s closure, the city risks becoming a ghost town again.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    As someone who has bought numerous furniture items from IKEA and spent frustrating hours putting them together, I understand the IKEA furniture concept. Does the hon. Lady agree that the potential loss of 352 jobs is horrific, and that there must be an onus on a chain store as large as IKEA to go the extra mile by placing members of staff in other stores or ensuring that they are trained for new jobs? It is not enough to just up sticks with a “too bad, too sad” attitude; that just will not be accepted.

    Zarah Sultana

    Absolutely. The priority has to be every single member of staff whose job is at risk. IKEA should prioritise their needs, and ensure that they are redeployed to other stores or offered skills and training.

    The words of The Specials risk becoming true once more. But there is a broader trend; there are now roughly 25,000 empty retail spaces around the country, which is a vacancy rate in excess of 10%. Last year, 57,000 retail jobs were lost, and a further 10,000 were lost last month alone. The market is only too happy to put workers on the scrapheap the moment that the profit motive demands, and there is a real danger that these IKEA workers will be discarded too, but they must not be forced into unemployment with all the strain and pain that it brings.

    I know how grim unemployment can be. I know what it feels like. I know the sense of shame for people who stand in the queue at the jobcentre. I know the loss of confidence they feel, the impact it has on their self-esteem ​and the fear they feel that they may lose their skills. I have been there. For the sake of these workers—and workers across Coventry and the country who are at risk of losing their jobs, are stuck in insecure work or are already out of work—I tell the Minister that it is his responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. It is his responsibility to protect workers from unemployment and to ensure that the training, reskilling and job opportunities exist to give everyone the chance to have decent, well-paid and secure work. We cannot have a Government who oversee the opening up of food banks and the closing down of good workplaces.

    The Prime Minister likes to talk about “levelling up” the country. Well, I hope I am forgiven for not believing a man whose party drove the deindustrialisation that now blights the midlands and the north; whose party slashed the funding of public services that working people rely on, cutting more in the midlands and the north than in the wealthy shires; and whose party continues to prioritise the City of London, which dominates the economy, and concentrate spending on the capital and the south-east. After all, in his own words, nobody “stuck up for the bankers” more than he did.

    If the Prime Minister were to follow up on his promise to invest in the region, here is what he would do for workers in Coventry—here is what he would do to ensure that the 352 workers at the IKEA store would not have to fear unemployment. It means reversing decades of deindustrialisation and instead investing in new green industries to kick-start the green industrial revolution, including manufacturing electrical vehicles to bring back the motor industry to the west midlands, but now reducing emissions and improving air quality. It means investing in Coventry’s public transport, opening up new rail lines and bringing them into public ownership to make travel free and green. It means reversing cuts to local government, whereby councils have lost 60p to every £1, so that Coventry City Council can support the local community as it wants to. It means rejuvenating Coventry city centre and high streets across the country by giving local councils the power to open empty retail spaces to start-ups, co-operative businesses and local community projects. It means not pretending that you are not to blame for the collapse in bus services, when Conservative Governments have cut £645 million in real terms from buses, and instead putting real money into our bus services and letting under-25s travel for free. That is how we can rejuvenate Coventry city centre and high streets across the country.

    Coventry is the city of culture 2021; it is a city rich in culture and industrial history. But the closure of IKEA will be the latest episode in what happens when Governments do not invest in all regions, allow deindustrialisation to go unchecked and let our high streets empty. That must not continue. I give my solidarity to the workers at IKEA at what is a difficult time for them and clearly state that I am here to fight for them and for all workers.

  • Siobhan Baillie – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Siobhan Baillie, the Conservative MP for Stroud, in the House of Commons on 13 February 2020.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood)—especially without having had to do the weird Westminster thigh workout that is bobbing up and down for ages to get your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    First, I wish to thank the people of Stroud, who put their faith in me. I am particularly proud to be the first ever female MP for Stroud. I am also an optimist. I said on the telly last year that I was the luckiest candidate in the UK, and now I am the luckiest MP. So I thank you all; I do not take this responsibility lightly.​

    I like the custom of giving credit to our predecessors in maiden speeches. Throughout his long career in politics, David Drew was known for his idealism and his commitment to his constituents. He had one of the longest-running political bromances with my predecessor, Neil Carmichael. They fought each other for nearly 20 years—that is some dedication. I wish David well in whatever he decides to do next.

    Anybody who has read Laurie Lee’s “Cider with Rosie” will know of the beauty and charm of Stroud’s five valleys. Please read his work soon if you have not already done so. Historically, the area was made prosperous through an early recognition that the local fast-flowing, clean river water could be used to power cloth mills. You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not wearing vintage Stroud cloth today; the truth is that I could not find it in animal print. [Laughter.] I am, however, wearing the creation of a young Stroud fashion designer who dedicates her talent to making sustainable fashion, completely without waste. And she does it in baby-bump size, which is very kind.

    As my constituency goes beyond the magnificent town of Stroud, the breadth and physical geography and the diversity of human activity found in the valleys and vale just defies simple description. From Sharpness to Stroud, Hardwicke to Horsley, Cranham to Cam, Berkeley to Bisley and Arlingham to Amberley, I am always impressed with people’s ideas and passion. So when people ask me why I am optimistic, I say, “Look at our current creativity, innovation and drive.” It is the people who are the real stars. They are some of the most innovative, hard-working, caring and creative souls I have ever met. Look at the young designers; our schoolchildren, who are leading on environmental change; and the energy packed into every quirky festival, litter-pick and Stroud town in bloom competition.

    Look, too, at our businesses: a company founded in Stroud is leading innovations in battery-powered aeroplanes; the Prince of Wales’ Aston Martin and the royal train are fuelled with Stroud biofuel; the fastest ever land rocket is being built in one of our schools; and stunning local wallpaper and fabric designs can be found in homes around the world, including those of the rich and famous.

    However, my job is not just to love-bomb Stroud or to talk idly about change. I am in this place to get things done. The people of this great country have given us a mandate; now, we must deliver for them. So I have cobbled together a few key thoughts. From my time as a councillor and having fought for local campaigns, I know that it is often the changes around us in our communities and neighbourhoods that we notice the most. It is often local effort and kindnesses that make the biggest difference to where we live. Therefore, while I welcome the recognition of the importance of place and the investment that is coming into infrastructure, we must not forget the people in that process. As I said before, it is the people who are the real stars.

    From my experience on the doorsteps across the Stroud constituency, I know that we must support our high streets. They need investment so that they can be the hub of communities once again. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government saw that for themselves in Stroud during the election—this speech was only correct as ​drafted and the Chancellor has now changed, but I will not be put off seeking funding for my local high streets by a reshuffle.

    We must support our farmers. They are the great custodians of our land. All new legislation should focus on maximising their potential and maximising food production.

    We must support our schools and children with special educational needs. They are our future. The new school funding formula is welcome, but we have to correct long-standing issues with funding in Gloucestershire.

    We must support new green initiatives and lead the global emergency response. A commitment to the environment runs through every single thing that we do in Stroud, the valleys and vale.

    From my experience, working my way up to be a family law solicitor and being before the House today quite against the odds, in many respects, I know that we must support further education. University is great for some, but what about everybody else? Come to see the students at South Gloucestershire and Stroud College: be inspired by them, see what Government funding can do, and realise that we will all benefit from unleashing the potential of lifelong learning.

    We must support initiatives that strengthen relationships and early intervention for children. We know that mental health issues are established by the time of the teenage years, and we know about the five pathways to poverty. It is daft simply to throw money at problems for adults without a true preventive programme backing up children.

    We must support families going through times of separation. Children get caught in the middle, and couples now frequently litigate without any representation at all. Nobody wants this—not the parents, not the couples, not the judges and not the lawyers. We can and should change that system.

    I started by saying that I am an optimist, but of course we face challenges: we live in a world where competition is global; the pace of technological change is accelerating; and climate change threatens our very way of life. Addressing these challenges will require hard work and difficult choices. That is why our constituents sent us here. I look forward to working for all the people of Stroud and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to deliver for this great nation. I, for one, truly believe that the best is yet to come.

  • Neil Hudson – 2020 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Neil Hudson, the Conservative MP for Penrith and the Border, in the House of Commons on 13 February 2020.

    It is a great honour to stand to make my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Penrith and The Border. It is a tremendous privilege to be in this House, and I thank my electors for putting their trust in me. The three MPs before me—William Whitelaw, Lord David MacLean, and Rory Stewart—had amazing parliamentary careers, covering roles such as Home Secretary, Chief Whip and International Development Secretary. I pay special tribute to my predecessor, Rory Stewart. When I was selected as the candidate for my seat, Rory reached out to me and was extremely kind and generous with his support, for which I am grateful.

    Rory was a tireless champion for Penrith and The Border, famously walking around the entire vast constituency—even that did not tire him out. He helped ​countless numbers of constituents and campaigned hard for better broadband, overcoming rural isolation, protecting the environment, and flood management, which sadly has been critical again in Cumbria in recent days—my sympathies go out to the people of Appleby at this time. As a Minister, he was incredibly thoughtful, articulate and rational in portfolios such as the environment and prisons and, latterly, as International Development Secretary. As he moves on, I wish him and his family well. By the way, Rory, when you are next in Cumbria, you are welcome to come and kip with me.

    Penrith and The Border has a population of over 82,000 and an area of 3,120 sq km. As such, it is geographically vast and sparsely populated. The constituency contains many diverse and beautiful villages and towns. I will name but a few, with apologies to those that I miss out: Penrith, Wigton, Appleby, Longtown, Brampton, Alston, Kirkby Stephen and Shap. I am also proud to have parts of the original Hadrian’s wall in my constituency, as well as parts of the original “blue wall”.

    Agriculture is the lifeblood of the constituency, accounting for about 50% of land use, but there are other industries, too. Tourism is a hugely important sector for our local economy. Indeed, Cumbria has one of the largest tourist economies in the UK. There were 47 million visits to Cumbria in 2018 alone. In addition, there are over 5,700 businesses in Penrith and The Border. Such businesses are absolutely vital to our communities.

    Such a vast area has problems with connectivity, be it virtual or real. Whether it is broadband, mobile phone coverage or transport links such as trains and rural buses, communities and people need to be connected and joined together so that people can interact with and access their local services. I will champion these causes.

    As the name suggests, my seat goes right up to the Scottish border. I will join hands with my colleagues along and across the border. Working together, we can bring investment and infrastructure to the area through initiatives such as the Borderlands Partnership. I will also passionately stand up with all my heart for the precious Union that is our United Kingdom.

    I am a veterinary surgeon by background, and I believe I may be the first vet to be elected to the House of Commons since 1884, when Sir Frederick Fitzwygram was elected as the Member of Parliament for Fareham. The other vets at Westminster have included the late, great Professor Lord Soulsby, who was brought up in Penrith and was the dean of Cambridge Veterinary School, where I trained. Now there is Professor Lord Trees, who sits in another place. All three served as president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which I am proud to be a fellow.

    So why has this particular vet ventured into politics? My involvement as a veterinary inspector in the 2001 foot and mouth crisis spurred me into wanting to use my background in public service. I am sure Members will recall the dreadful scenes from that crisis—scenes we hope are never repeated. Supervising the culling of many, many animals is sadly emblazoned in my memory. Nationally, over 6 million animals were slaughtered. Cumbria was hit especially hard, with over 1.25 million animals lost. Forty-five per cent. of Cumbria’s farms were subject to culls, and this rose to 70% in the north. ​The crisis had severe effects on agriculture and the economy, and also on the mental health and welfare of the people who live and work in this area.

    As we all know, agriculture is incredibly important to the UK, contributing £9.6 billion to UK economic output in 2018, but it goes much wider than this. We are a nation of animal lovers. Some 40% to 50% of households have a pet and, as an equine vet, of particular relevance to me is the fact that there are over a quarter of a million horses in the UK. Issues in areas such as animal health and welfare, disease surveillance, public health and trade are pivotal, now more than ever, as we enter a crucial time of legislation and common frameworks in these areas.

    It is vital that, now we have left the EU, we stand up for our first-class standards of farming and animal welfare as we go on to secure trade deals. Indeed, this will be a great opportunity for the UK to be a beacon to the rest of the world on animal welfare. We can send out the message that if other countries want to trade with us, they need to bring their animal welfare standards up to our level.

    Sadly, the veterinary profession is over-represented in mental health issues and the incidence of suicide. I very much welcome the cross-party and, indeed, Government commitment to parity of esteem between mental health and physical health so that people, both young and old, can access the best mental health care in hospital and in the community.

    On a lighter note, being a vet in politics has some advantages on the doorstep. As I said, half of households have a pet, frequently a dog. When I am out canvassing and a dog hears a vet knocking at the door, either they run a mile, thinking they are about to get an injection or, worse, have their anal glands emptied—“anal glands” is something you will not read in Hansard every day—or they run towards me. I am reminded of the time a dog did just that and latched on to my leg, not in an aggressive fashion but more in an amorous manner. I looked down and said to the owner, “Well, I think I’ve secured his vote.” To which the owner smiled and replied, “Well, you’ve got mine now, too.”

    Finally, I would like to thank some specific people. First, I thank my family and friends for their enduring and steadfast love and support over the years—I could not have done this without you. I also thank Penrith and The Border Conservative association for all its help and support.

    I also thank specific Members of this House and another place for their support and encouragement in my journey here. To my right hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Dr Fox), for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) and, in another place, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, thank you so much.

    On the other side of the House, I specifically mention the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), whom I was up against as a candidate in 2010. When I was selected as the candidate for Penrith and The Border, he contacted me to wish me well, and he did so again when I arrived here. I feel strongly about that ​spirit of cross-party working. If someone on the other team has an idea that is good for the country, we should work together to bring it forward for the benefit of everyone. It is in that spirit that I enter this House and hope to continue.

    Finally, if you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a final few words about someone you knew well, as he was a constituent of yours. My father, Christopher Hudson, sadly passed away just a few days ago. I have debated whether to say this and, indeed, whether to go ahead with my maiden speech this week, but I know it is what he would have wanted me to do.

    My dad, Christopher Hudson, was a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology, and he devoted his life to the service of his patients in the NHS and in Australia, and during periods spent in Nigeria and Pakistan. He notably worked to reduce maternal mortality and postpartum complications in the developing world. He delivered countless babies and saved countless lives through pioneering surgery in this area and, especially, in cancer surgery—those procedures are still making a difference today. In addition, he trained and mentored so many health professionals right up until the end. I am so sorry that he is not here today, but he is at peace now. With all my heart and soul: thank you, mum and dad. God bless you, dad. This one’s for you.