UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Willie Hamilton – 1974 Speech on North Sea Energy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Willie Hamilton, the then Labour MP for Fife Central, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    It might be as well to get on the record the fact that we should have another look at the way in which we conduct the Consolidated Fund Bill. The last debate began at just after six o’clock. That means that it has continued for virtually six hours. It was concerned with a subject of major importance, but I think that our proceedings should be arranged in such a way that Members who take part in the ballot and are badly drawn in it might have a better chance of participating and having their say on whatever subject they wish to discuss. I suppose that that is a matter for the Procedure Committee. I hope that the committee will consider the desirability of limiting a debate to a maximum of two or three hours.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-on-Tweed)

    The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) might consider having a word with his Whips about the possibility of allocating more Supply Days to minority parties. That means could be used and might ease the hon. Gentleman’s problem.

    Mr. Hamilton

    It might well be that the minority parties would fare a lot worse than today. Minorities are to be protected, but majorities also have rights. Perhaps I may describe them as larger minorities. Until now, and certainly since the election, the House has given protection to the smaller minorities. It is time that the larger parties had a greater say in the running of debates than they have had hitherto.

    I come immediately to the subject of this debate, which is North Sea oil. Next week we shall have the Budget, in which one of the most critical problems that will have to be dealt with is the scandalous blunder which has been perpetrated in the handling of North Sea energy resources by both Labour and Conservative Governments. I think that the Conservative Government were more culpable than the Labour Government, because it was under the Conservative régime that we had a glimpse of the obvious wealth of resources under the North Sea waiting to be developed.

    The guidelines on future policy were laid down devastatingly by the Public Accounts Committee Report of 1972, which made damning disclosures about Government ineptitude in a purely nonpartisan and objective way. But even since that report was produced at least two new factors have emerged which make imperative the introduction of radical new attitudes and policies.

    The first new factor is the quadrupling of world oil prices within the past four months. It is easy to be wise after the event, but I suppose that we should have foreseen that. It is possible that there will be an equal increase in the foreseeable future.

    Secondly, there has been increasing knowledge about the extent and value of the oil finds in the North Sea—much of it, as well as the Celtic Sea, not yet even explored. In a few months the value of the known commercial reserves has increased sixfold. Various estimates are now made, but anyone who engages in hard figures in this game is being absurd. We do not know what the value of the finds is. It depends entirely on existing prices, and they can be out of date before I sit down.

    It was estimated by the Observer on, I think, 10th February this year, that the resources are worth about £130,000 million at existing prices. The Observer also stated that by 1980 production could be up to 150 million tons a year.

    Professor Balogh said in his recent article in the Banker that by 1980 it could be up to 150 million tons a year. American bankers estimate that production could be over 200 million tons a year. Various estimates are given. Professor Odell, quoted by Professor Balogh, believes that production could be 300 million tons a year, with the British sector delivering two-thirds of that. We are talking in figures beyond the comprehension of the British people.

    Let us assume a minimum United Kingdom figure of 150 million tons a year, or over 1,000 million barrels. Even at 10 dollars a barrel, the annual pre-tax profits would be over £4,000 million and by 1980 the price is almost certain to be at least 50 per cent. higher. It has already been higher than that in some of the auctions. These figures are far higher than the latest figure for the gross profits made by ​ the whole of United Kingdom manufacturing industry as of now. That is the scale of the problem with which we are trying to grapple.

    The scandal is not irreversible, because not a barrel of oil has yet been delivered. At present, more than half of those profits could go untaxed to foreign interests. As early as mid-1970 the oil experts were predicting that the North Sea could provide up to two-thirds of the whole of Europe’s requirements, and since then enormous further finds have been made.

    I referred on a previous occasion to the Edinburgh Mafia, but now the international Mafia has moved in for the killings, from the House of Fraser to Courtaulds—concerns that have no relationship to oil—Thomson Associated Newspapers, and the inevitable stockbrokers, land speculators and merchant bankers. They are all in it, and I hope that the Government—who are now in the process of formulating their policies—will prevent these people from grabbing what they can while they can and then clearing out. By the end of 1971 the potential robbery and plundering of the North Sea was terrifying in its magnitude, matched in size only by the crass ignorance of the Government of what was going on under their noses. But the situation is not irreversible, and the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee still await implementation.

    Certain minimum steps are required to be taken by the Government. Some have been spelt out, partly by the Public Accounts Committee and partly by Lord Balogh. Despite what the Opposition may say about Lord Balogh, he knows his onions about North Sea oil, and I do not think that anything he has proposed will frighten off the oil companies. Let not the Tory Party say, “You are too severe; you will frighten them off.” We shall not be able to drive them out. They will settle for 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. on their capital; there is no question of their pulling out.

    First, there is a case for renegotiation of the existing licence conditions. We have the benefit of hindsight and can see how ridiculously over-generous were successive Governments in giving away the licences at the beginning.

    Secondly, I agree with Mr. Dick Douglas, the former Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, who ​ sat on the Public Accounts Committee and strongly recommended a barrelage tax on a sliding scale, perhaps as recommended by Lord Balogh in the Banker article. We on the Government side favour increased public participation at least comparable to that exercised by Norway.

    We must have a reform of the royalty system, varying with the size of the field, and, going back to the Labour Party policy of six or seven years ago when we recommended the establishment of a national hydrocarbon corporation, a monopoly State buyer and seller which would fix the price at which the oil was bought and sold. The manifesto on which the Labour Party fought the election, referring to the increased oil prices in the Arab countries, said—

    “the new situation has greatly strengthened Labour’s intention to ensure not only that the North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas resources are in full public ownership, but that the operation of getting and distributing them is under full Government control and majority participation. We cannot accept that the allocation of available world output should continue to be made by multi-national oil companies and not by Governments. We will not permit Britain’s own resources to be parcelled out in this, way. It is public ownership and control that will enable the British people, through its Government, to fix the pace of exploitation of our oil, and the use to which it is put, so as to secure the maximum public advantage from our own resources.”

    The manifesto went on to refer to the possibility of setting up an international energy commission to establish an international allocation of available oil resources. I shall return to that in a moment.

    When he spoke last Tuesday, the Prime Minister reminded us that these resources are already a publicly-owned asset, under the Continental Shelf Act. The machinery to ensure its proper use has not yet been devised. The Government admit that frankly. Much the same consideration applies to this matter as applies to Kilbrandon. Any Government would be most ill advised to make decisions of this magnitude on the spot. Instant government does not apply either to Kilbrandon or to North Sea oil. I could not blame the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when concluding for the Opposition in the energy debate last week, for making some play of the apparent contradiction between one policy and another ​ expressed from this side. But there is no need to apologise for saying that it is an extremely difficult problem to tackle. One does not want to drive the oil companies away. On the other hand, one does not want them to be the masters of our fate. They must be our servants, not our masters.

    All we are entitled to expect from the Minister tonight, I think, is a progress report. Two days ago, on 18th March, he made a speech to a conference in Newcastle in which he said, in so many words, that the Government were planning a partnership with the oil companies to obtain the maximum benefit for the British people. That can be criticised, of course, as saying no more than that we are not going in for full-blown public ownership, or nationalisation. I do not give a damn how the cash is obtained—whether through 51 per cent. control, a public corporation, a barrellage tax, or whatever it may be—so long as we ensure that the revenues from North Sea oil come back to the people. The asset belongs to us and to no one else. The oil companies’ expertise in exploring, discovering and extracting must be used for the public good.

    My hon. Friend went on to say that several schemes are being considered, and that legislation will be forthcoming in the next 12–18 months. Tonight, I hope that he will be able to answer one or two specific questions. He recognises the importance of the IMEG Report, which was highly critical of what had gone on up to 1972, when the report was made.

    Do the Government intend to implement as swiftly as possible all the recommendations in that report? If not, which are they throwing overboard, and why?

    For instance, are we to have art extension of further education and training facilities? It is absurd that we should be talking about thousands of millions of pounds of potential revenue, yet for education and training facilities we speak in terms of hundreds or thousands at the most. We should be thinking in terms of millions of pounds, and we should be demanding that kind of money from the oil companies.

    I hope that we shall hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next week that we hope to get revenue from the oil companies’ profits, prospective and present, ​ and use a lot of that for extending these facilities, for building up the Petroleum Supply Industry Board which was recommended by the IMEG Report, for an information service to offshore operators and contractors, for credit facilities for covering the sales of equipment and services to offshore operators and contractors, and financial support for research and development projects.

    Different types of production platform are being put forward for offshore moorings, or for pipelines. There are various techniques for deeper water exploration. All these require enormous sums of money. I was glad to see the IMEG report recommending a study of the infrastructure. There is no doubt that oil facilities onshore will affect the environment. No one can prevent this.

    I do not believe that the industry can be sustained without a massive switch of transport from road to rail. There will have to be a big investment in the railways in the Highlands and wherever there is an oil potential. There is a reference in the IMEG report to the problems created in Scotland. It happens that oil has been found where the environment is perhaps more important than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is not easy to marry the need to get the oil for national purposes with the need to protect a way of life that is unique. To make sure that one situation does not destroy the other is an exciting and challenging task, which we cannot shirk or pretend that it will go away.

    We must ensure that the minimum long-term damage is done to traditional values and ways of life. It is not good enough to say that we should slow down development. The tap cannot be turned off as easily as the Scottish National Party seems to suggest. How would that party slow it down and to whose advantage would that be? I appreciate that in the nature of things this is an extremely valuable asset, limited in its duration. We do not know how long an extractive industry will last. It is important to treat it as a precious asset, not one to be squandered by selling it below the world price or by getting people to believe that it can be shovelled out to provide massively increased pensions.

    The SNP campaign during the election appalled me by its appeal to the base ​ material instincts of people. It had a leaflet that was almost pornographic. It spoke of £25-a-week pensions, no income tax, and no rates. One of the party’s candidates actually went around on a camel in one of the constituencies.

    Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

    It was a Conservative candidate in Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire who had occasion to use a camel in the course of the campaign. Certainly none of our candidates was so minded.

    Mr. Hamilton

    No, perhaps they could not afford it. That was the kind of campaign conducted. Certainly it was not a Labour candidate who used a camel.

    It is quite wrong to appeal to people’s nationalistic greed by saying that because the oil happens to have been found round a particular part of the coast north of an arbitrary line drawn between Carlisle and Berwick, all the benefit should go to people who happen to live north of that line and nothing should go south. I find that kind of campaign quite appalling.

    I go further. These ought to be treated as international resources. We are not at that stage yet. We are a long way from world government. But that is how I would like to see them treated. At the moment we have divided the North Sea by international agreement, and we have divided the resources by international agreement. We have to see to it that they are used for the benefit of all our people.

    There are people all over the United Kingdom who are as poor as and sometimes poorer than the poorest in Scotland. As an international Socialist, I do not think in these narrow nationalistic terms, and as an Englishman representing a Scottish constituency for 24 years, I think that I can say that.

    My nationality has never been questioned, although my birth sometimes has. The people of Fife always ask me what I stand for and what principles I stand for, not where I was born and what nationality I am. This problem should be approached in a similar way.

    Whatever Government machinery is devised or evolved, the minerals round our shores and beneath our land belong to us all, and we have to see to it that the oil companies are answerable and ​ accountable to us. They must be our agents and not our masters. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to seek ways and means of keeping this House continuously informed. I should like some machinery devised—it may be a permanent all-party Select Committee of this House having a continuous oversight of what is going on, or the Government might see fit to produce monthly reports on the progress of consultation. They must demand from the oil companies a full disclosure of their costings and of their accounts. Let us have full open disclosure by them. For far too long we have worked in the dark. The oil companies are skilled at pulling the wool over the eyes of successive Governments. That must no longer pertain. I hope that we shall have some undertakings along these lines.

    I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will explain precisely what is to be the role of Lord Balogh in these proceedings and what is the relationship between my hon. Friend himself, Lord Balogh and the Minister for Energy. I have a great admiration for the noble Lord. I think that he knows what he is about, and the oil companies have a right to fear and respect him. I hope that he will be used to the maximum. But I should like to know the relative importance of Lord Balogh, of the Minister for Energy and of my hon. Friend.

    It will be a very difficult exercise and a very exciting challenge. I hope that this minority Government will exist long enough to get the legislation on the statute book which the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his last Budget. Nothing has happened since, except a retreat, if anything, from that promise. Apart from that, I hope that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will take it upon himself to lay down the line to the oil companies that we are not having any more of the kind of financial jiggery-pokery for which the oil companies have been well known over many years. They have always known how to cook the books and how to evade taxation. This must be stopped. We must ensure that the vast resources at our disposal are used for the benefit of all our people and that in the process the environment is disturbed to the minimum extent.

  • Frank McElhone – 1974 Speech on Patrick Meehan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Frank McElhone, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Queen’s Park, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I rise to raise the case of Patrick Connelly Meehan, a constituent of mine, who, as I am standing here, is completing his fifth year of a sentence of life imprisonment in Peterhead Prison for a crime many people believe he did not commit. He was convicted in the High Court in Edinburgh in October 1969 for the murder in her bungalow in Ayr of Mrs. Rachael Ross.

    The crime was frightful, and I do not seek to condone it. It involved the death of an elderly woman who was tied up in her own home in furtherance of the theft of her husband’s savings. I am not here to condone or overlook the past criminal activities of my constituent, Patrick Meehan. Rather am I here in the interests of justice, for it matters not whether the person concerned was Patrick Meehan, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, me or anyone else in the Chamber. What matters is that it appears that the wrong man was convicted.

    Patrick Meehan is a man with a long record of dishonesty but no record of violence. He was charged and subsequently convicted of the crime, albeit by a majority of nine to six. Despite the character of the crime, and despite the the character of Patrick Meehan, there is every reason to believe not only that he was wrongly convicted but that one of the likely perpetrators of the crime is known and is at large.

    A person was named and accused by the defence at the original trial in October 1969, and since then that person has confessed to, and been sentenced for, giving perjured evidence at the original trial. He has subsequently confessed in detail to the actual crime of which Meehan was convicted, a confession which he denied on ascertaining that it had been surreptitiously recorded by the BBC.

    There can be few, if any, other cases in legal history in Scotland or in England ​ of a man serving a sentence of life imprisonment for a crime to which another man has confessed in uncontrovertible detail. Even if there had been no such defence and no such confession, the events which emerged and the evidence which has become available since the conviction cast the greatest doubts upon the validity of the original verdict.

    The Crown case was never more than circumstantial. It depended in the main upon five factors or circumstances. Two of those five were provided by Meehan himself to the police at a very early stage in their inquiry, even before Meehan had been arrested and before suspicion had focused upon him in any way.

    Meehan told the police that he had been in the proximity of Ayr and in the company of James Griffiths on the night of the crime. Following upon his arrest he gave the name and address of James Griffiths to the police in support of his alibi. When the police went to arrest Griffiths a gun battle ensued in Glasgow, in the course of which Griffiths, who was armed, was shot dead.

    At the trial, the first two circumstances of the Crown case were that Meehan was in the proximity of Ayr on the night in question and that he was in the company of Griffiths, who had attempted to shoot his way out when being arrested for the crime, and who had a criminal record for violence, which the jury was allowed to hear in the course of Meehan’s trial.

    The third circumstance was the identification of Meehan by his voice. At an identification parade Mr. Abraham Ross, the widower of the deceased, asked that each member of the parade say the words “Shut up, shut up. We’ll get an ambulance.” Meehan, who was in the first position on the parade, spoke the words and was immediately identified by his voice. No other person on that parade spoke those words.

    The fourth circumstance was that the men involved referred to each other as “Pat” and “Jim”—the Christian names of Meehan and Griffiths. The fifth circumstance was that there were found, some six weeks after Griffiths’ death, in a car coat belonging to him, scraps of paper which could have had a common origin with paper in Mr. Ross’s safe. Thus, the Crown relied heavily on ​ Griffiths’ presence, Griffiths’ violence, Griffiths’ record, and Griffiths’ voice.

    Subsequent to Meehan’s trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. I asked constitutional experts in the House whether I could play this tape, because it would have a very important bearing on the case. Although I have the tape in the House, I am, of course, responding to the wishes and practice of the House and I am depending upon the oral case I am presenting to influence my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am delighted to see that even at this late hour my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is also present, and I am extremely grateful to him.

    As I have said, subsequent to Meehan’s trial, and prior to his appeal against conviction, it was discovered that the BBC had in its possession a recorded interview with Griffiths in an English prison. In the course of that interview, Griffiths stated that he could never face prison again and that if ever any attempt were made to arrest him he would shoot his way out. He also spoke with a pronounced North of England accent. This is very important because in the course of the trial Mr. Ross, himself a Glaswegian, claimed that the two raiders had Scottish accents and that the one referred to as “Jim” spoke with a Glasgow accent.

    None the less, the Appeal Court, when Meehan’s appeal came before it, refused to allow the recording of Griffiths’ voice to be played to Mr. Ross. Such was the Crown case that the raiders were either Meehan and Griffiths together or neither. Had Mr. Ross, on hearing the tape, excluded Griffiths, he would thereby have excluded Meehan and, indeed, would thereby have excluded all the evidence which there was against Meehan.

    At the trial, Meehan impeached Ian Waddell, an unemployed labourer. Waddell gave evidence at the trial, during the course of which he denied having paid £200 to a Glasgow solicitor as a retainer in the event of his being charged with the murder. Mr. Ross, who, in the course of the trial, heard Waddell use the words ​

    “Shut up. Shut up. We’ll get an ambulance”

    stated that Waddell’s could have been one of the voices heard in the house during the robbery.

    Despite considerable evidence pointing towards Waddell, the presiding judge withdrew from the consideration of the jury the special defence impeaching him. Recent clarification of the law in the case of Her Majesty’s Advocate against Lambie has made it clear that the special defence ought not to have been withdrawn from the jury.

    Subsequent to the dismissal of Meehan’s appeal against his conviction, Ian Waddell was charged with and pleaded guilty to having given perjured evidence at Meehan’s trial in that he denied having paid the retainer to the Glasgow solicitor concerned. When he was sentenced for perjury, the presiding judge, Lord Cameron, gave it as his opinion that had Waddell told the truth at Meehan’s trial the jury in Meehan’s trial might have come to a different conclusion.

    In February 1973 Ian Waddell on two separate occasions gave blunt and detailed confessions to members of the BBC, that he was responsible for the crime, along with another man, the identity of whom was the one detail of the crime that he refused to divulge. Unknown to him, the members of the BBC staff to whom he was speaking in a Glasgow public house were surreptitiously recording his conversation. When the existence of these recordings became known, Waddell attempted unsuccessfully to interdict the BBC from making use of them, and denied indeed ever having made the confessions.

    Waddell gave detailed descriptions of the design and content of the house, facts which could only be within the knowledge of someone who had been in the house, and facts which were subsequently confirmed by Mr. Ross’s daily help.

    As though that by itself were not enough, it is now apparent that the conduct of the identification parade at which Meehan was identified by his voice was highly irregular. But that was not the only irregularity in this affair. No sooner was James Griffiths dead than, in contradiction of the supreme principle of our law of the presumption of innocence, the ​ Crown Office issued the following statement:

    “With the death of Griffiths and the apprehension of Patrick Meehan, the police are no longer looking for any other person suspected of implication in the incident concerning Mr. and Mrs. Ross at Ayr.”

    With such prejudice, what need is there for evidence? But such prejudice was carried into the evidence, and the criminal record of James Griffiths was put before the jury. Had Griffiths been alive and sitting in the dock instead of being dead and named in the indictment along with Meehan, his record would not have been used against himself, far less against his co-accused.

    In the time available to me I have been able to give a mere outline of the paucity and frailty of the evidence of the Crown, of the prejudice surrounding the trial and the evidence, of the wrong withdrawal of the special defence of impeachment, and, above all, of the weight of the evidence now to hand which suggests strongly the guilt of another perpetrator and scuttles entirely any evidence implicating the man who is at present serving a sentence of life imprisonment in respect of this crime.

    Our law and our legal system are intended to protect the individual, however good or however bad he may be, against wrongful conviction. Where it fails, as it has failed here, it is the duty of us all to admit our mistake and strengthen our law and our legal system by admitting our mistake rather than deny our mistake and pretend that our law and our system are perfect.

    Who in the House would ever say that upon the evidence now available a jury would ever convict Patrick Meehan? This is a unique case. It has disturbed the conscience of many persons within the legal profession, persons of standing and responsibility. It should now disturb the conscience of the House and of the nation. I earnestly urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up with the utmost urgency an impartial inquiry to recommend the Queen’s Pardon for Patrick Meehan and thus ensure that justice is done.

    In conclusion, I wish to put on record my most sincere thanks for assistance and guidance in preparing the case on behalf of Patrick Meehan to Mr. Nicholas Fair-bairn, the QC at his trial, to Mr. Leonard Murray who prepared this brief and, ​ especially, to Mr. Joseph Beltrami, a solicitor at the trial, who has been convinced of the innocence of Patrick Meehan ever since he was convicted five years ago.

  • Emlyn Hooson – 1974 Speech on the Kilbrandon Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emlyn Hooson, the then Liberal MP for Montgomery, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    As this is a debate on the Kilbrandon Report, I should like to begin by saying that I am sure I express the views of people in every part of the United Kingdom when I speak of their abhorrence of violence of the kind we have heard about tonight. It is the sincere hope of all those who are concerned with the issues in the report that never shall anyone resort to violence to achieve his aims.

    It was the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and other members of the Liberal Party to achieve a debate on the Kilbrandon Report early in this Parliament, so that we could adequately consider the great issues raised by that very important constitutional report. The whole House will appreciate the opportunity that has been given for a debate at this stage, because clearly the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary have important matters to consider.

    I think it is inevitable that there should be a great measure of devolution within this country. A great deal of discussion has taken place during my mature years in politics, and there will be a great deal of discussion in the future, on the degree of devolution appropriate for different parts of the United Kingdom. The one thing that seems to have escaped adequate attention is the question of the reasons. We are part of an evolving society in Western Europe and in this country. It is right to say that from the time that Harry Tudor went to the field of Bosworth and marched on to London the eyes of Wales, and later of Scotland, were switched towards London. They did not stop there. We became a part of a tremendously expanding country. The United Kingdom sent people all over the world. It is part of our history that we populated and developed a great part of the globe.

    Whether in the glens of Scotland, in the valleys of Wales, in Westmorland ​ or in the Black Country, up to 20 or 30 years ago if there was insufficient scope for an adventurous young man in his locality he looked towards London, to the seas and beyond the seas. For the first time in modern history this country, in the past 10 years, has been driven back on to its own resources. There is nowhere left for us to expand in the world. There is nowhere left for us to populate. The result is that we have a considerable population which does not reflect the old patterns. In the old days the adventurous spirits would have gone away. Nowadays they stay in their own locality.

    A great deal of talent and much adventurous spirit is left in Scotland, Wales and the regions of the United Kingdom. That is why people now want a greater say in the control of their own affairs than in the past. The evolution of our society and the change in our horizons has determined that that should take place. It is an evolutionary process which is unavoidable.

    The second great consideration is that the evolvement of modern government has inevitably resulted in a consistent tendency towards centralised power. It is almost an irresistible force—this tendency towards centralised power.

    The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to the fact that there is a movement all over the country and in Europe which is partly expressed by the nationalist parties, partly by the Liberal Party and partly by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In different ways they are all expressing a discontent with the modern state of affairs which we have inherited from the past and which suited the conditions which governed us in the past.

    Today it is inevitable that we have arrived at a situation in which some form of devolution is essential. I have firmly believed all my life that Wales should have a domestic parliament with legislative powers. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Argyll to Gladstone. In Gladstone’s Newcastle programme there was not only a proposal for home rule for Ireland. I tell the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), who is not in his place, that home rule in that context did not ​ mean separation but a domestic parliament. It is to the eternal discredit of the other place that the Bill which was presented many times by Gladstone and his successors should have been obstructed and that Gladstone was frustrated in his intention to give Ireland a domestic parliament. We should have retained, if he had succeeded, what is now the Republic of Ireland within the United Kingdom.

    The second measure which Gladstone intended to initiate was home rule for Scotland and the third was home rule for Wales. That would have followed the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. It was the frustration of the Irish measures under Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George that led to the present impasse, which has resulted in a part of Ireland breaking away from the United Kingdom and a great deal of trouble in Northern Ireland.

    That is the background to the debate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is true that in Scotland and Wales the same kind of pressures do not exist which existed in Ireland in the nineteenth century or exist today. We do not have to create such unnecessary pressures in the present century if we have enlightened government.

    I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). He knows that I have considerable respect for him, but he spent too much time attacking the Liberals and the nationalists and too little explaining what he would like to see implemented for Wales. Wales and Scotland are essentially different. From my many visits to Scotland and judging also by my many Scottish friends, I believe that the Scottish nationality is based more on ancient institutions than is the case in Wales.

    Scotland has its own system of law. Wales had its own system of courts until 1830—the Courts of Session—which were abolished after a great speech by Edmund Burke. But apart from that, Wales has been singularly free of governmental institutions since the Tudor period. Emotionally, of course, it was a case of Wales taking over England when the Tudors moved to the throne, which had a great psychological effect in Wales. One thing which the Tudors did was to ensure that Wales was absorbed wholly into the ​ United Kingdom. Much of their policy towards the language is still much criticised in Wales today.

    In Scotland, national identity has depended on the trappings of State at a much later stage of history than is the case in Wales, which enjoyed them, if at all, for only a short time. The Welsh identity is based on cultural and social considerations far more than on institutions, and there is a great deal of difference between the two countries.

    I am convinced that in the modern world we have all the pressures in Europe to strive for greater unity. Although I was against going into the Common Market, I share the view that we should aim at a united Europe. But we want to create a different kind of Europe from that which was in danger of being created by the Common Market. There are undoubted pressures for a multinational unit of some kind in Europe, enjoying its own loyalty among the people it will contain. But, as a corollary, such a multinational unit will be impossible unless we have far greater protection for minorities within it. This is why it is so important to have devolution for Wales and Scotland.

    Wales in this generation needs some institutions of government which the Welsh princes and the Tudors failed to give it and which we in our day must give it if Wales is to continue to hold dear its cultural and social values. I am, therefore, entirely in favour of a Parliament with legislative powers in Wales. I have always stood for this. Not every member of my party, at least in Wales, has always supported my view, but I have always held to it. I think it is the only course which makes sense.

    I understand I have been criticised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I am sorry I missed his speech, but I was unavoidably absent. He said that I was in favour of a referendum on the Kilbrandon Report. I am. I think there should be adequate debate on the report in Wales and then a referendum.

    I was in favour of a referendum on the Common Market because I believe that our membership was a great constitutional change. I think that the introduction of Kilbrandon would be a great constitutional change. I supported the Bill brought in by Mr. James Davidson, who ​ sat as Liberal Member for Aberdeenshire, West in the 1966–70 Parliament, when the Labour Party was in power last. The aim of the Bill was to have a referendum on a parliament for Scotland and a parliament for Wales. Who was against it? The Labour Party. On all major constitutional changes we should have a referendum. I have never changed my view on this. It is the only subject for which referenda are suitable in this country.

    On the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report that there should be a legislative assembly for Scotland, two of the members of the Commission who supported that recommendation dissented on the same recommendation for Wales. The reasons are given in paragraph 1151 of the report:

    “Wales, on the other hand, has no separate system of law, hardly any separate legislation and a geographically less well defined border. Two of us who favour legislative devolution for Scotland regard these and other differences between Scotland and Wales, and the strong desirability of retaining a Secretary of State for Wales, as sufficing to preclude its extension to Wales.”

    I regard those reasons, which are the only reasons in the report, as completely inadequate for distinguishing between Wales and Scotland. The fact that Wales is such a conscious community and so needs a focal point, the fact that so little time is given by the House to the discussion of Welsh affairs, the fact that so many problems which appear unimportant to the House but are important to the social and economic future of Wales, absolutely negative the reasons given by the two dissentients.

    I regard the Kilbrandon Report as being of the greatest value in analysing the kind of devolution that we can obtain. I do not regard as important the counting of heads—seven in favour of one solution and five in favour of another. Clearly, many members of the commission had preconceived ideas and, as the report indicates, what they finally recommended depended to a large extent on where they came from geographically.

    Looking to the future and to the youth of Wales, if we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom we need devolution to Wales and Scotland. It is as important in the minds of those who wish to preserve the unity of the United ​ Kingdom as it is in the minds of those who want, as Welsh Nationalists, far greater power for Wales. That is why I go wholeheartedly with the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report in favour of legislative devolution for Wales.

    Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), like his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and gave the impression that his speech was an all-out attack on Liberals and nationalists, thereby conveying that it was an anti-devolutionary speech. As is well known, my right hon. Friend has long held views on devolution to Wales. He has campaigned for more than 25 years for a greater voice for the Principality. I am sure that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not wish to convey the impression that my right hon. Friend is striving to hold back the natural aspirations of the Welsh people.

    Mr. Hooson

    I have a greater respect for the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and his views on devolution than have most of the Labour Party. If the right hon. Gentleman conveyed a wrong impression to me, that is a matter he should have put right. I accept that throughout the years he has been in favour of greater devolution for Wales.

  • Roy Jenkins – 1974 Statement on the Kidnap of Princess Anne

    Below is the text of the statement made by Roy Jenkins, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I regret to have to report to the House that an attempt was made by an armed man to kidnap Princess Anne at about 8 p.m. this evening when she was on her way back to Buckingham Palace with her husband.

    The attempt did not succeed, and neither the Princess nor Captain Phillips was hurt.

    I much regret to say, however, that Princess Anne’s protection officer sustained very severe injuries, and her driver, a police constable and a member of the public were also seriously hurt.

    A man has been detained and is now helping the police with their inquiries.

    I shall report further to the House when further information is available.

  • Shirley Williams – 1974 Speech on the Bread Subsidy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, in the House of Commons on 20 March 1974.

    I have discussed with representatives of the bakers the situation arising from their proposals to make increases in bread prices on 25th March following their notifications to the Price Commission.

    As the House is aware, it is the Government’s intention to introduce food subsidies for certain basic foodstuffs as soon as possible and, against that background, I explained to the bakers that it was my wish to avoid any price increases occurring on the major types of bread. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have now agreed with the bakers on arrangements under which there will be no increase on 25th March in the price of almost all loaves weighing 14 ounces or more, which account for nearly 94 per cent. of bread consumption.

    I am grateful for the co-operation of the bakers in enabling these arrangements to be made so quickly. Loaves of less than 14 ounces—which comprise smaller speciality loaves such as French bread, bread rolls and most types of starch-reduced bread—are not subject to these arrangements. Therefore, there may be some prices increases for these speciality breads.

    The proposals which I am making will involve paying a subsidy, subject to the approval by the House of the powers I shall be seeking in the proposed legislation on prices and subsidies. Estimates will be laid before the House in due course. The estimated cost of avoiding this round of increases in bread prices is of the order of £21 million per annum. My right hon. Friend will be taking this cost into account in formulating his Budget.

    Mr. Peter Walker

    May I ask the right hon. Lady whether it is her intention, by means of subsidy, to hold the price of bread at its present level irrespective of ​ further rises in cost? Secondly, may I ask her whether she is satisfied that spending £21 million on an indiscriminate subsidy of this type is the best way to spend such a sum to help those most in need? Finally, is it her intention to make further statements on subsidies for milk, cheese, butter, margarine, cooking fats, eggs, bacon, ham, poultry and flour, which the present Leader of the House said are items which could be subsidised by a Labour Government?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I can only say that he will have to wait and see, because neither he nor I can say what will be the movement of wheat prices in the next few months. Further price increases will be subject to notification to the Price Commission, and it will be open to us to engage in further discussions with the industry.

    As for the suggestion that the subsidy is indiscriminate, I must say that so-called discriminating subsidies constantly fail on the grounds of take-up. Therefore, we feel that bread, being an essential in the diet particularly of lower-paid workers and pensioners, is very well worth subsidising.

    On the question of further subsidies, my right hon. Friend said that these were articles that could be subsidised; it is important to distinguish between “could” and “would”. I will make further announcements to the House about any other individual commodities which we intend to subsidise.

    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement will be warmly welcomed as an important counter-inflationary measure and as an immediate fulfilment of our election pledge? Is she also aware that in certain rural areas, including my own constituency of Anglesey, an extra 1p is added to the cost of the loaf? Will she investigate this as a matter of urgency?

    Mrs. Williams

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). In reply to his point about the rural areas where transport costs lead to higher prices, we are at present only holding existing prices, but this is necessarily the sort of matter that we shall have in mind in our longer-term consideration.

    ​Mr. Pardoe

    While congratulating the right hon. Lady on having emerged from these negotiations and having learned that cheque book government is a good deal more difficult than she thought, may I ask the right hon. Lady to confirm that to have pegged the price of bread in 1970 would by now be costing the British taxpayer £200 million? Does she not think that the £500 million that she has available would be better spent not on indiscriminate or discriminate subsidies but on family allowances? Will she confirm that, having failed to subsidise French bread, George Thomson was right when he said that the French are now subsidising British bread?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, only the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Party suppose that any kind of government is easy. Some of us know better than that.

    The cost of family allowances is a separate matter which we shall be looking at as a Government. We were the last Government to increase family allowances. We believe that family allowances should have been increased in the long period since they were last increased. However, that is not a matter with which I am immediately concerned because bread is important in the diet of pensioners as well as of families.

    In reply to the third point, we are allowing the price of the French loaf—a loaf which may be enjoyed by those who receive the salaries of Members of Parliament—to find its own market level. It is no policy of the present Government to subsidise luxury foodstuffs.

    Mr. Mark Hughes

    Will my right hon. Friend say what will be the effect of this announcement on household flour, and whether there will be any consequential changes on milling tails for animal feeding stuffs?

    Mrs. Williams

    In reply to the first part of the question, no general price increase has been notified for flour. Were such a price increase to come, we would consider it sympathetically.

    In reply to my hon. Friend’s question about feeding stuffs, the subsidy relates only to bread flour used for the commercial production of bread. This by itself will not affect feeding stuff prices.

    Mr. Hordern

    Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the subsidy of £21 million covers only the historic costs of the bakers and does not include the current world price of wheat, and that a further claim by the bakers is likely to be made to the Price Commission in the next six weeks? An estimate of that cost is around £70 million. Will the right hon. Lady allow the subsidy to cover that figure in due course?

    Mrs. Williams

    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the figure which I announced will not cover any further increase apart from the one which we have under consideration. The figure which I am giving deals with the increase at present in the pipeline. Any further increase will have to be notified to the Price Commission and considered by the Commission, as was the case under the previous administration. What will happen in connection with the Government’s policy in respect of any further increases is a matter which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate.

    Mr. Jay

    While warmly welcoming the announcement which my right hon. Friend has made, may I ask her to say whether the Government will also stop the denaturing of good milling wheat by the Intervention Board which is designed to keep prices up and cannot rationally be combined with a policy of subsidies?

    Mrs. Williams

    I understand that this matter is to be looked at by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the discussions which he will be having shortly with the EEC. I take my right hon. Friend’s point.

    Sir D. Walker-Smith

    Will the right hon. Lady clarify the position, in the context of what she calls speciality bread —such as wholemeal bread, starch-reduced bread and other dietetically beneficent bread, if these were excluded from subsidy—from the point of view of the health of the nation?

    Mrs. Williams

    I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s affection for these beneficent breads. Any loaf which weighs either 14 ounces or 28 ounces will be covered by the subsidy, which is necessarily rough and ready mechanism because it has been organised in a short time. What happens in the longer term is another matter, and we shall hold dis- ​ cussions with the bakers concerning the many varieties of bread which exist.

    Mr. Arthur Davidson

    May I ask my right hon. Friend a simple question? Does this mean that bread prices will not go up in any shop? Secondly, will she keep an eye on an important fact—namely, ensuring that the English loaf is not suddenly transformed overnight into a speciality French loaf for the worst possible reasons?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question because it is important to make the position clear. The subsidy does not cover breads which are 10 ounces and below—such products as bread rolls, French baguets and so forth. It does not cover speciality breads of any kind. Those bakers who do not apply for the subsidy will not be covered by it. I trust that there will be few such, but there may be some.

    The simple answer, therefore, to my hon. Friend’s question is that the housewife will find that the price of the ordinary 14-ounce and 28-ounce loaves should not be increased. If she finds that it has been increased in one shop, I ask her to—[HON. MEMBERS: “Shop around?”]—walk down the road to the next shop. But we are talking about 94 per cent. of all loaves produced, so I am sure the housewife will not be obliged to shop around.

    Mrs. Oppenheim

    I welcome the right hon. Lady’s apparent conversion to shopping around. Does she consider bread to be one of those items which bear most heavily on the family budget? What is the cash benefit per week likely to be to the average family on average bread consumption? How is this likely to be offset by other increases in prices, such as for electricity?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am not converted to shopping around, which I thought was one of the sillier pieces of advice given by the last Government, since so many will not be obliged to shop around, because 94 per cent. of the loaves will be cause 94 per cent. of the loaves will be covered. Bread is one of the larger items in the retail food price index. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would know that. She will not expect me to anticipate statements, not only of my Department but of other Departments, about prices in the nationalised industries.

    ​Mr. Huckfield

    I welcome what my right hon. Friend said, but is she aware that the latest published returns of the big flour millers reveal that Rank Hovis McDougall’s showed a profits rise of 17·3 per cent., Spillers-French of 17·3 per cent. and Associated British Foods of 27·3 per cent? In the circumstances, should we be subsidising such companies? Should we not be asking them to reduce their subsidies to the Conservative Party?

    Mrs. Williams

    It would be useful if they did so. My hon. Friend is putting a fair point but he is looking at profits which do not wholly relate to bread, and we are not at present subsidising flour or any other ingredients which go into products other than bread. The question of profits is a matter which will be considered by the Price Commission, but it will also be studied by the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the matter today.

    Sir H. Nicholls

    Can the right hon. Lady estimate how much time has been bought by this £21 million? Roughly, when does she expect the price of bread to go up or down as a consequence of the price of the ingredients?

    Mrs. Williams

    I cannot possibly say when the next increase might be due. We are living through an historic period during which wheat prices have risen very fast. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] We have said it over and over again. I really do wish sometimes that the Conservative Party would not cheer when we repeat what we said over and over again during the election—that world food prices have risen but that they are by no means the only factor in prices.

    Mr. Peter Mills

    In the interest of keeping the loaf fairly steady in price, will the right hon. Lady consider the encouragement of the use of more soft wheat in the mixture and get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture to see whether more hard wheat could not be grown in this country? Both these things would help keep the price of the loaf steady.

    Mrs. Williams

    As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there has already been ​ some shift towards soft wheat in the average grind, by millers over the past year, and we welcome that because it has managed to shave the price increase to some extent. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about hard wheat further, but he also knows that in the use of soft wheat there is a limit on the staying quality of the loaf. But I will pass his suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

    Mr. Kilfedder

    What will be the saving to the average family as a result of the subsidy, which I welcome? Can the right hon. Lady ensure that, because of freight charges, the price of bread in Northern Ireland will not be any different from the price in England?

    Mrs. Williams

    The immediate effect will be to avoid an increase in the food price index of 0·25 per cent. I cannot possibly answer the hon. Gentleman’s point about the saving to the average family because this involves each person’s individual food budget. But I have given the best indications I can.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me about the price in Northern Ireland. The subsidy is intended not to meet the additional cost of transport to any part of the United Kingdom but to meet the additional cost of the flour for bread production.

  • Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Heathrow Expansion

    Grant Shapps – 2020 Statement on Heathrow Expansion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    Our airports are national assets and their expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity. This in turn will drive economic growth for all parts of this country, connecting our nations and regions to international markets, levelling up our economy and supporting a truly global Britain.

    We are also a Government who are committed to a greener future. This Government are acting to tackle climate change and we are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050.​

    The Court of Appeal ruled today that when designating the airports national policy statement, which was backed by Parliament, the previous Government did not take account of the Paris agreement, non-CO 2 emissions and emissions post 2050.

    We have always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers. The Government have taken the decision not to appeal this judgment. The promoters of the scheme will be able to seek permission from the Supreme Court to appeal if they wish.

    As part of its judgment, the Court has declared that the airports national policy statement is of no legal effect unless and until the Government carries out a review under the Planning Act 2008. The Court’s judgment is complex and requires careful consideration. We will set out our next steps in due course.

    We want Britain to be the best place in the world to do business and as a Government we are committed to investing in transport and wider infrastructure as part of levelling up economic opportunities across the country, including investing in the strategic road network, proceeding with HS2, and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.

    We fully recognise the importance of the aviation sector for the whole UK economy. The UK’s airports support connections to over 370 overseas destinations in more than 100 countries facilitating trade, investment and tourism. It facilitates £95.2 billion of UK’s non-EU trade exports; contributes at least £14 billion directly to GDP; supports over half a million jobs and underpins the competitiveness and global reach of our national and our regional economies. Under our wider “making best use” policy, airports across the UK are already coming forward with ambitious proposals to invest in their infrastructure.

    We are committed to working closely with the sector to meet our climate change commitments. Our global aviation emissions offsetting scheme, sustainable aviation fuels, greenhouse gas removal technology and eventually, electric net-zero planes, will all help play their part in the aviation sector decarbonising. We also welcome Sustainable Aviation’s Industry-led commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the range of innovative action this will unlock to achieve this outcome. We are investing nearly £2 billion into aviation research and technology, and this year my Department will publish an ambitious plan of actions setting out how we will decarbonise transport and support the UK achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

    It is critical that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy, level up our regions, and unite our country.

  • Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Whiplash Reform Programme

    Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Whiplash Reform Programme

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I would like to provide an update on next steps for the whiplash reform programme.

    The Government remain firmly committed to implementing measures to tackle the high number and cost of whiplash claims. The reform programme includes the measures in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018, which will introduce a fixed tariff of damages that a court may award for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, as well as a ban on the making or accepting of offers to settle a whiplash claim without a medical report. Alongside these, we will be increasing the small claims track (SCT) limit for road traffic related claims to £5,000.​

    The Government had indicated that they wished to implement these measures from April 2020. The Ministry of Justice has made major progress towards this. It has worked closely with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), and with stakeholders representing claimants, including litigants in person, and defendants, on the successful build of a new official injury claim service (the service). With the MIB, and using independent research, we have designed the new service to put the needs of the claimant at its heart. It will provide a simple, user-friendly and efficient online route to provide those affected by road traffic accidents with an opportunity to settle small claims for personal injury without the need for legal representation or to go to court. Where a claimant is not able to make a claim online there will be the option to do so on paper. A dedicated customer contact centre will be available to support all customers through the journey if necessary.

    Alongside the MIB, the Ministry of Justice has demonstrated the development of the service at numerous stakeholder events in London and Manchester, and spoken at stakeholder conferences across the country. We have been clear about the design of the service, and how we will work to ensure stakeholders from across the claimant and insurance industries are kept aware of, and can feed into, the development of the new platform.

    Despite this progress, the Government have given careful consideration to whether implementing the whiplash measures in April remains practical, given the work that remains to be completed. We have listened to the arguments made by both claimant and insurance representative bodies.

    As a result, the Government have decided that more time is necessary to make sure the whiplash reform programme is fully ready for implementation. We have always been clear that we need to do this right, rather than hastily. In particular, we need to provide sufficient time to work with the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to put in place the supporting rules and pre-action protocol and to give industry sufficient time to prepare their businesses for the changes to how small road traffic personal injury claims are managed. We will also lay the statutory instrument in Parliament to introduce the tariff of damages for whiplash injuries.

    In the light of this, the Government have decided to implement these reforms on 1 August 2020. The necessary rules and pre-action protocol, and the statutory tariff, will be published in sufficient time before implementation.

    The new service is designed with all users in mind, and will be simple and easy to operate. Currently motor insurers accept liability for damages in the majority of whiplash claims after road traffic accidents, and we do not expect insurer behaviour to change post implementation. However, there will be occasions when insurers do not accept liability, and claimants will need to be able to resolve liability disputes. Initially, the Government proposed to include a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to enable liability and quantum claims to be adjudicated. However, in the event, no practicable solution which gave sufficient coverage of ADR for claims could be found. As a result, ADR will no longer be part of the online service. Instead, we will ensure access to justice by developing bespoke processes to enable litigants to go to court to establish liability.​

    The increase in the small claims track limit will not apply to those who have been termed “vulnerable road-users”, for example, motor-cyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, and who in any event will not subject our whiplash tariff provisions.

    The increase in the small claims track limit will also not apply to children or protected parties. This will enable the Government to test the processes and ensure that we have them correct before considering further extension.

    Because these claimants will not be subject to the new small claims limit, they will also not be subject to the new pre-action protocol and so will not have access to the online service. As such, they will not be able to source their own medical report via the online service, which is statutorily required to settle claims for whiplash injuries. Therefore, until they can access the online service, the normal track for claims by children and protected parties which include a whiplash injury, will be the fast track and these claims will not be allocated to the small claims track. This means that, for now, these claimants will be able to instruct a legal representative who may obtain a medical report on their behalf and their costs of legal representation will remain recoverable. This decision has been taken for no reason other than that we consider it the fairest and most straightforward approach to ensuring, for now, that these claimants can obtain the medical report which they must obtain before they can settle their claim.

    It is absolutely right that this Government continue their commitment to tackle the high number and costs of whiplash claims, and the impact these have on the cost of motor insurance premiums for hard working families. Delivering these reforms remains a key Government priority. We will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that all are sufficiently prepared for the new measures on 1 August 2020.

  • Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on an Independent Review of Drugs

    Priti Patel – 2020 Statement on an Independent Review of Drugs

    Below is the text of the statement made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    In February last year, the former Home Secretary, my Right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), announced that Professor Dame Carol Black had been appointed to lead a major independent review of drugs. Dame Carol was asked to look at a wide range of issues, including the system of support and enforcement around drug misuse, in order to inform our thinking about what more can be done to tackle drug harms.

    I am pleased to announce that today Dame Carol’s review has been published. The review provides detailed analytical insights on the challenges around drug supply and demand and I would like to thank Dame Carol for producing such an accomplished piece of research. This will be of significant value in guiding further Government action to tackle drugs as we move forward.

    This Government recognise that illegal drugs devastate lives, families and communities. There are strong links between drugs and serious violence which have played out on our streets, as well as a range of wider health and social harms. The review makes clear that we face a whole system problem that should be addressed by looking at Government intervention in the round. It is therefore critical that we bring together partners from across Government and externally to build upon this work and tackle the challenging issues Dame Carol has raised.

    Activity is already in place to tackle the findings in the review. The Home Office is stepping up activity to address the challenges highlighted around drug supply and county lines. We will bring the full force of the Government’s response to bear on drugs supply, with work to disrupt supply from source countries; build resilience and enhance interception at the border; improve our ability to disrupt the groups that control UK wholesale and distribution of illegal drugs; pursue associated money flows; and use interventions to divert users into treatment where appropriate.

    This activity includes further investment to significantly increase the law enforcement response to county lines. Our investment is having a direct impact against high harm county lines which is why we have now committed an additional £5 million, on top of the £20 million that we announced in October 2019. This means we will be investing £20 million in 2020-21 to further increase ​activity against these ruthless gangs. We are also working with colleagues across Government and with key partners to develop a wider, whole system response to tackle the county lines business model and associated violence and exploitation

    Alongside this, my Right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will commission a further review of prevention, treatment and recovery. Dame Carol will lead this further review with input from experts in the field. It will build on Dame Carol’s work to ensure vulnerable people with substance misuse problems get the support they need to recover and turn their lives around. It will look at treatment in the community and in prison, and how treatment services work with wider services that enable a person with a drug dependency to achieve and sustain recovery, including mental health, housing, employment, and the criminal justice system.

    The Department of Health Social and Care will work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice to ensure the review is wide-ranging.

    There are also a range of wider activity across Government to address the issues raised by Dame Carol, including work to prevent drug misuse among young people.

    I am pleased that the new Prime Minister-chaired taskforce on crime and justice has been announced, which will enable us to be ambitious in reducing crime, including county lines, and drug-related crime such as the acquisitive crime driven by heroin and crack cocaine use.

    Given the devolved nature of many parts of the response, we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure drug misuse is tackled as a UK-wide problem.

    With this renewed focus on drugs across Government we are determined to address the challenges raised in the review head on.

    A copy of Dame Carol’s review and the executive summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-drugs-phase-one-report

  • Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on the Defence Equipment Plan

    Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on the Defence Equipment Plan

    Below is the text of the statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I am pleased to place in the Library of the House the 2019 financial summary of the defence equipment plan, ​which sets out our plans to deliver the equipment needed by our armed forces to defend the country and protect our national interest.

    The threat to the UK and our interests is intensifying and diversifying. As we set out in the modernising defence programme, we need to modernise to keep pace with these threats. The forthcoming integrated security, defence and foreign policy review will provide us with the opportunity to re-visit our equipment plans to make sure that we are spending the defence budget on the right capabilities to keep our country safe in the decades ahead. This will inescapably bring some difficult choices.

    We will need to create the financial headroom in our equipment plan to harness emerging technologies and develop the battle-winning capabilities of tomorrow. We know that to get this right, we must accelerate our work to mobilise, modernise and transform so that we deliver more effectively and efficiently over the long term. Reviewing our acquisition process will be an important part of this work.

    While there is clearly work still to do, the Department has made encouraging progress in improving financial management, including in the equipment plan. We have balanced the budget for equipment in the 2019-20 financial year and refined our assessment of the financial shortfall in our plans for the next decade, which has reduced from £7 billion to £2.9 billion, or 1.6% of our equipment budget.

    We take seriously the recommendations of the 2018 Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the equipment plan and in April 2019 reported the actions we are taking in response. These include revisions to this report to include further analysis of changes to the affordability of the plan and provide further background information on individual projects.

    The Government remain committed to meeting the NATO target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, and at least 20% of that spending will be on equipment. During 2018-19, the Government committed £1.6 billion additional spending for defence and a further £2.2 billion was committed in spending round 2019. The detailed implications of this most recent settlement on the equipment plan are being reviewed and will be reported in due course.

    The Department is alert to the financial challenges rooted in previous strategic defence and security reviews that were over ambitious and underfunded. That is why the Prime Minister granted a £2.2 billion uplift at the last spending review and it is why the integrated defence, security and foreign policy review will be vital in ensuring the Department’s plans are put on a stable footing.

  • Christina Rees – 2020 Speech on Welsh Affairs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Christina Rees, the Labour MP for Neath, in the House of Commons on 27 February 2020.

    I thank the Government for bringing forward this debate on Welsh affairs. Of course, the calendar dictates that we are unable to hold the debate on St David’s Day, as 1 March falls on a Sunday this year. Nevertheless, the debate remains a firm fixture in our parliamentary business, providing a great opportunity to discuss the issues, challenges and priorities that matter to Wales.

    I also thank the Government for granting the debate in Government time, which has not happened for many years; not, I think, since the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) became Secretary of State—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would be able to correct me on that, were he here, as his knowledge of the House is far better than mine. Certainly, since I have been taking part in St David’s Day debates, they have been Backbench Business debates.

    Yesterday I bumped into my good friend Albert Owen, the former Member for Ynys Môn. We were reminiscing about Welsh affairs debates, among other things. Seeing Albert reminded me just how much I miss him, Ian Lucas, David Hanson, Susan Elan Jones, Owen Smith, Madeleine Moon, Anne Clwyd and, last but not least, my former shadow ministerial colleague, Chris Ruane. Those dedicated Welsh MPs have given years of service to the people of Wales, and their work should be celebrated for all that is good about being a Welsh Labour MP. We have two great new Labour MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who are already making their presence felt and will be fantastic additions to our Labour Team Wales.

    Not many hon. Members know this, but in my constituency of Neath we celebrate not only St David’s Day, when the children dress up in Welsh costumes to celebrate our Welsh culture, but St Patrick’s Day. Patrick was born in Banwen, at the top of the Dulais valley, but he was kidnapped as a child and taken to Ireland. Every year we hold a fantastic celebration at a stone we have erected to his memory in Banwen. Schoolchildren, residents and special guests come along to hear the great Roy Noble giving one of his memorable speeches about St Patrick. We are indebted to the famous local historian George Brinley Evans, now 93, who researched this phenomenon ​and was the leading protagonist in establishing the St Patrick stone and the annual event. Please join us. We have a leprechaun who comes all the way from Ireland to take part too. I look forward to seeing Members there on 17 March.

    It is regrettable that I must begin my proper address in sombre tones, as we reflect on the impact that recent events have had on our great nation. Two storms and unprecedented flooding have taken their toll on communities across Wales, including, but not limited to, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Llanwrst, Monmouth and parts of my Neath constituency. From severe damage to bridges and iconic landmarks, such as the national lido of Wales, to the destruction of the entire contents of family homes, these floods will cost Wales dearly.

    The First Minster, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the Prince of Wales have visited households and communities right across the country, but alas the Prime Minster could not find the time to visit just one of the flood-damaged areas of the UK. He has said many times that he would not “die in a ditch”, but perhaps he was missing in action because he fell into the moat surrounding his holiday castle, or perhaps he could not find his wellies.

    The community spirit and response in our devastated Welsh communities has shown the world the best of Wales: compassion, kindness, humour and solidarity have shone through the contribution of volunteers, emergency services, council workers, welfare halls, miners’ institutes, Royal British Legion branches, rugby clubs, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so many more.

    Craig Williams

    The hon. Lady missed that the source of the Severn is in Montgomeryshire, in mid-Wales. Although I will not politicise this or make tribal political points about missing one of the biggest floods in Wales, will she reflect on the fact that we have to work together to ensure that people recover as soon as possible from this tragedy, and that does not include cheap political shots of the sort she has made thus far?

    Christina Rees

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We always work together, but the Prime Minister is the leader, so he should have visited the areas affected.

    Many local authorities are pulling together to support those who are most severely impacted by the floods, working in the most demanding of circumstances to get the quickest possible support to those in need. However, the UK Government must now step up and recognise the disproportionate and intense impact that the floods have had on Wales. We need additional funding for Wales. We need protection for emergency household payments. We need immediate help for those who do not have insurance. We need support for those who have lost their jobs and livelihoods.

    Geraint Davies

    My hon. Friend is probably aware that more severe weather conditions are expected over the coming seven to 10 days, so is she as concerned as I am about the saturation of coal tips and the like? We need an urgent assessment of whether there is an imminent risk to villages and hamlets in the valleys, which are susceptible to flash-flooding and slides, because of the topography of the valleys and the increased risk from ​climate change. We need urgent action, immediate help and long-term solutions; we cannot just wait for a report to come back.

    Christina Rees

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I have visited homes that have been flooded or affected by landslips over the past few weeks, it has broken my heart. People who do not have insurance have had their homes destroyed yet again. Yes, we need action, and we need it now, because the weather forecast is definitely not favourable for the next few weeks.

    A quarter of all homes and businesses were flooded in Rhondda Cynon Taf alone, with a potential bill of £30 million—twice the council’s annual capital budget. I must commend the work of the Rhondda Cynon Taf MPs and AMs and the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf Council, Andrew Morgan, who is also leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, which has done some fantastic work.

    There is so much to celebrate about our great nation, some of which I will discuss in a moment, but there are also a great many challenges and a level of uncertainty in our communities, against the backdrop of Brexit and the negative effects of austerity on so many Welsh communities and families.

    These challenging times make it more important than ever to have a strong Welsh Labour team of MPs here in Westminster, working with the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff Bay. It remains a huge privilege to serve as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), our Welsh Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and our wonderful Welsh Labour MPs.

    This Tory UK Government have continually failed Wales, and unfortunately the Wales Office continues to fail to stand up for the people of Wales. We were promised the electrification of the Great Western main line to Swansea, but the UK Government changed their mind. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon was recommended by this Government’s own inquiry, but they ignored it, and Wylfa Newydd has been paused. The people of Wales hear loud and clear the UK Government’s promises to our country, and the people will hold them to account for their failure to deliver. We demand more, and we demand better.

    The UK Government must recognise the folly of continuing to frustrate efforts to launch a major new domestic market for Welsh steel. The pathfinder tidal lagoon in Swansea bay requires around 100,000 tonnes of steel, much of which could be sourced in Wales, against a very clear commitment from the investors and businesses involved to buy Welsh. The past 12 months have seen the loss of hundreds of jobs in the steel industry, in Tata’s Orb steelworks in Newport and in Liberty Steel in sites in south Yorkshire and south Wales. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for their tireless campaigning on behalf of our steelworkers.

    Wales needs investment, as the UK as a whole needs investment, and the people of Wales will judge this Government harshly if they continue to fail to deliver it. Opposition Members will continue to speak up for Wales—for Welsh families, communities and businesses— ​and for the devolution settlement itself. It is not for any UK Government unilaterally to rewrite the rules of devolution by attempting to power-grab and centralise functions set out in law and agreed through the ballot box, using Brexit as a cover for those actions. Despite what the Secretary of State has said about the UK shared prosperity fund, it is still a mystery to me. We continue to wait and wait for the much anticipated consultation, and for any details whatever on how the fund will be implemented. It must respect devolution and be overseen by the Welsh Government, and we must not see a penny less or a power lost. I commend the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group for post-Brexit funding for nations, regions and local areas, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

    The people of Wales have a right to see a UK Government acting in their best interests, protecting their jobs and investing in the public services they rely on and the infrastructure we desperately need to secure Wales’s future. Despite a decade of austerity and a 7% real-terms cut to funding per head of the population, the Welsh Government have continued to lead the way in delivering landmark legislation and progressive policy making. The Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 and the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016 are groundbreaking examples of a modern legislature creating laws that make a difference for the people of the nation.

    The Welsh Government have also introduced policies such as free bus travel for the over-60s, free swimming for children and older people, free school breakfasts, free prescriptions and free hospital parking, as well as being the first nation of the UK to introduce the 5p carrier bag charge. They have banned smoking in cars carrying children, and Wales has the third highest recycling rate in the world. That is just a brief glimpse of what has been delivered during the past decade. The achievements of the Welsh Government are, quite honestly, nothing short of remarkable.

    Craig Williams

    On that point, will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

    Christina Rees

    For the hon. Member, of course.

    Craig Williams

    I could not resist intervening at this particular moment—I rather thought it was 1 April, not St David’s Day. Will the hon. Member comment on the report of the Wales Audit Office that pointed out the several hundred million-pound overspend on the heads of the valleys road and other significant infrastructure projects over the decade that the hon. Member said was so successful?

    Christina Rees

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, European funding produced the heads of the valley road.

    Craig Williams

    So it’s okay to waste it?

    Christina Rees

    Pardon me?

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    So it’s okay to waste it?

    ​Christina Rees

    No, of course —that road is going ahead. It is only the UK Government who have prevented it from going ahead faster. I do not know where I am now; the hon. Members have completely lost me. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. We must not have heckling—well, not much—of the shadow Secretary of State.

    Christina Rees

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to finish now, because I am sure that lots of other Members want to speak.

    Jonathan Edwards

    Will the hon. Member take a friendly intervention before she moves on?

    Christina Rees

    I was getting to the good bit, but I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

    Jonathan Edwards

    I am sure the hon. Member will also have some concern about the negotiating mandate set out today by the British Government in relation to the second phase of Brexit and the trade negotiations. Indeed, the Welsh Government have issued a stern statement indicating that they were not consulted at all about the mandate. I fear that the best we can hope for is a bare-bones free trade agreement. The Welsh economy will be more exposed because of our reliance on exports into the single market. What does the hon. Member think the Welsh Government should do now, since the British Government clearly are not taking any notice of Wales’s position?

    Christina Rees

    The hon. Member makes some very good points. It has been a concern of mine for a long time that the Welsh Government have not been involved in the negotiations. They have to be involved; this is the future of Wales that we are talking about. I am really disappointed that they have not been involved to the extent that they should have been.

    Now I come to the good bit. The House will know how passionate I am about sport. Wales is a sporting nation. When Wales wins the people of Wales are very happy. When we lose it is the end of the world. I went to the Wales versus Italy match, which was a great result, as the House knows—I don’t think I want to talk about the other matches, so I will move swiftly on.

    My constituency of Neath has a proud sporting history. The Welsh Rugby Union was created in the Castle Hotel in Neath. The best player in the world, Gareth Edwards, was born and bred in Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Dan Biggar’s family was born and bred in the Dulais valley, where I live, as was Dennis Gethin, who recently stood down as chair of the WRU. Of course, Neath RFC are also called the All Blacks—a great tribute.

    In a former life I was a squash player and played for Wales over 100 times. It was a great honour to pull on the red jersey of Wales. I became national coach for Squash Wales, and one of my roles was to develop squash for all ages and all standards throughout Wales. We have a superb junior development structure, which has produced some great players. I am very proud to say that on St David’s Day we will have two senior players ranked in the top 10 in the world, and they have both come through the junior structure: Tesni Evans, based in Prestatyn, is ​two times British champion and bronze medallist at the last Commonwealth games; and Joel Makin from Aberdare, a member of the Welsh men’s team who came third in the last world championships. Wales is again showing that we are punching above our weight.

    Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Christina Rees

    Sure—a squash player?

    Rob Roberts

    Not a squash player, but almost. On a sporting theme, would the hon. Member be kind enough to pay tribute to the wonderful Jade Jones from Flint in my constituency who has, since the last time this debate was held—since last St David’s Day, in fact—become 2019 world champion in taekwondo?

    Christina Rees

    Of course I will. Jade is fantastic advocate for women’s sport, and I am glad that the hon. Member intervened to mention her.

    Coming back to squash, there is a great injustice. We have been campaigning for many years to get squash into the Olympics. It has never been included, despite having championships at every national and international level. I have been banging on about this for quite a few years, so I ask all Members to join me to ensuring that squash becomes an Olympic sport.

    I am not the only Welsh Labour MP who has represented Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) is a Welsh rugby international. I must say that that game is far too tough for me; one good tackle and I think I would be done for, so I will stay off the rugby field.

    That is enough from me. I look forward to all Members’ contributions and wish the whole House a happy St David’s Day for Sunday.