Tag: Speeches

  • Paul Scully – 2022 Statement on the UKCA Product Regulation Regime

    Paul Scully – 2022 Statement on the UKCA Product Regulation Regime

    The statement made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2022.

    I am pleased to announce that the Government are going further to make it easier and cheaper for businesses to move to the new UKCA product regulation regime.

    Our new UKCA regime gives us the chance to take control of the way products are regulated and ensure these rules work to the benefit of business and consumers in Great Britain. The UKCA marking will become mandatory for most goods which previously used the CE and reverse epsilon markings if they are first placed on the market in Great Britain after 31 December 2022.

    The Government understand that moving to this new regime has meant changes for businesses. While change is necessary, we want to take a pragmatic approach. We have been consulting with industry to understand their key concerns in the transition to the UKCA marking regime.

    The Government want to make it easier for businesses to comply with the changes so we will introduce four measures to further support businesses adopting UKCA. These measures are designed to reduce compliance burdens and prevent costs that could be passed on to consumers. These changes will apply to BEIS sectors requiring the UKCA marking, other Departments will make related announcements on arrangements for their sectors as required in due course. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is making a UKCA announcement in conjunction with BEIS today, as indicated below.

    These measures are as follows:

    Government will reduce re-testing costs for UKCA certification, by allowing certificates provided by EU (European Union) conformity assessment bodies (CABs) issued before the end of this year to be used as a basis for UKCA marking certification—including a specific arrangement for construction products, via the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This will prevent duplication and immediate increased costs for businesses.

    Government will make clear there is no need to re-test existing imported stock, as these products will be considered already placed on the Great Britain (GB) market. This will prevent the costly, and unnecessary re-labelling of existing stock for businesses.

    Government will make clear that spare parts that repair or replace goods already on the GB market can meet the same requirements as the goods that they repair or replace. This will allow products and goods requiring spare parts to continue to be maintained.

    Government will allow the UKCA marking and importer details to be added to products using a sticky label or on an accompanying document until 31 December 2025. This will allow business to adjust their product design to accommodate marking changes at a convenient and cost-effective time.

    The Government intend to lay secondary legislation before the end of the calendar year to give effect to the changes for labelling and testing. Our guidance will be updated to reflect our changes to spare parts and existing stock.

    These measures are being implemented to address the concerns we have heard through working closely with industry. Officials in the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, in collaboration with other Departments, will continue to engage actively with industry and support their preparations ahead of the full introduction of UKCA rules at the end of 2022.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on the National Rail Strike

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on the National Rail Strike

    The speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2022.

    What a pile of nonsense. The glee with which the Secretary of State spoke on Thursday and again today rather tells the story. He spoke of the support for the rail industry and the fact that no one has lost their job. If only we had seen that same support for the aviation industry, which was promised, we would not be seeing the scenes we are up and down this country at airports across this land. In response to P&O’s unacceptable behaviour in replacing staff with agency staff, he called for the company to be boycotted and for it to reverse its decision. Now he is planning to legislate to allow agency workers to replace striking staff. Why does he not care for the rights of rail workers, given that he appeared to care so deeply for the rights of ferry workers?

    ScotRail, with the encouragement of the Scottish Government, has negotiated a settlement with drivers to end their pay dispute, get services back up and running and support workers. Despite that, services will still be disrupted as a consequence of the industrial action that the UK Government have stoked with Network Rail workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that devolving Network Rail powers to Scotland is the only way to protect Scotland? Despite his claim that the unions are solely responsible for these strikes, we now know that the UK Government have prevented meaningful negotiations. With inflation heading over 10% and a Tory cost of living crisis, how can he explain or defend preventing negotiations on wage increases, unless stoking an industrial dispute to force through anti-union laws is actually the Government’s aim?

    Finally, does the Secretary of State share my concern for the welfare of the Scottish Conservatives, none of whom are with us today? On the ScotRail-ASLEF issue, the Scottish Conservatives’ Twitter account said

    “The SNP must sort this mess out and address the travel misery facing commuters.”

    Graham Simpson MSP, the Scottish Conservative transport spokesperson, no less, called for the Scottish Government to get involved and get round the table. That is the difference in approach we get from the Scottish Conservatives depending on which Government they are addressing. So does the Secretary of State think that the Scottish Tory approach is shameful; shameless; the standard utterly hypocritical politics of the Scottish Tories; or all of the above?

    Grant Shapps

    I will address the point about P&O, because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) also raised it. I am surprised that they cannot see the glaring and obvious differences in the disgraceful treatment of P&O workers. For a start, it fired its workers and brought in foreign workers at below the minimum wage—I would have thought that was a fairly obvious difference. Secondly, no one’s wage is being cut here. Thirdly, let me remind the hon. Lady that in the industry we are talking about train drivers have a median salary of £59,000 and rail workers have a median salary of £44,000, which compares rather favourably with that of nurses, who have a median salary of £31,000, and care workers, whose median salary is perhaps £21,000. No one is talking about cutting salaries; everybody here is trying to get the modernisation that could secure the future of our railways, and it is a great pity to see respected Opposition Front Benchers trying to mislead the public by somehow suggesting that this is something to do with the P&O situation when it is entirely separate and different.

    The other point worth quashing is the idea that somehow we have not provided a negotiating mandate or that we have told Network Rail not to negotiate. That is simply not true. Network Rail has a negotiating mandate and is able to negotiate. It is negotiating on a package of measures that includes more than 20 areas of reform, which are deeply technical and require not only the input but the work of the employers to negotiate. In return for these reforms lies the route to better salaries—higher pay. But I want to ensure, once and for all, that we quash the idea that our railway workers are poorly paid in this country; they are not.

  • Louise Haigh – 2022 Speech on the National Rail Strike

    Louise Haigh – 2022 Speech on the National Rail Strike

    The speech made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2022.

    No one in the country wants these strikes to go ahead, but as I have repeatedly said, even at this eleventh hour they can still be avoided. That requires Ministers to step up and show leadership. It requires them to get employers and unions round the table and address the very serious issues, involving pay and cuts in safety and maintenance staff, that are behind this dispute.

    The entire country is about to grind to a halt, but instead of intervening to try and stop it, the Secretary of State is washing his hands of any responsibility. On the eve of the biggest rail dispute in a generation taking place on his watch, he has still not lifted a finger to resolve it. Not one meeting. No talks, no discussions; only media interviews and a petition to the Labour party. This is a grave dereliction of duty. Should the strikes go ahead tomorrow, they will represent a catastrophic failure of leadership. Ministers owe it to all those impacted by this serious disruption to get around the table for last-ditch talks to sort it out and avert it. If the Secretary of State will not listen to me—[Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Can the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) either go outside or be quiet for a little while?

    Louise Haigh

    If the Secretary of State will not listen to me, he should at least listen to his own colleague and former parliamentary aide, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), who said yesterday:

    “I can tell you the only way out of a dispute is via negotiation. I’d call on all parties including the Government to get around the table because this is going to have a huge negative impact on people’s lives.”

    The Secretary of State’s own MPs and the public know that the only way to sort this out is for him to do his job.

    But that is not all, because this week it was revealed that the Secretary of State had not only boycotted the talks but tied the hands of those at the table. He and his Department failed to give the train operating companies—a party to the talks—any mandate to negotiate whatsoever. One source close to the negotiations said:

    “Without a mandate from Government we can’t even address the pay question.”

    Today, the Rail Delivery Group confirmed that it had not even begun those discussions. That is the reality. These talks are a sham, because Ministers have set them up to fail. It is for the Government to settle this dispute. They are integral to these negotiations, which cannot be resolved unless the Secretary of State is at the table, but it is becoming clearer by the day that Ministers would rather provoke this dispute than lift a finger to resolve it.

    This is the same Transport Secretary who just a few short weeks ago was feigning outrage over the disgraceful behaviour of P&O and who is now adopting its playbook. Replacing skilled, safety-critical staff with agency workers cannot and must not be an option. So what exactly has changed between the Secretary of State calling on the public to boycott P&O and now, when he is suggesting that that behaviour should be legalised?

    Tomorrow we will see unprecedented disruption. We have been clear: we do not want the strikes to happen. Where we are in government, we are doing our job. In Labour-run Wales, a strike by train staff has been avoided. Employers, unions and the Government have come together to manage change. That is what any responsible Government would be doing right now, because whether it is today, tomorrow or next week, the only way this dispute will be resolved is with a resolution on pay and job security. The Secretary of State owes it to the hundreds of thousands of workers who depend on our railways and the tens of thousands of workers employed on them to find that deal.

    Those rail workers are not the enemy. They are people who showed real bravery during the pandemic to keep our country going. They showed solidarity to make sure other workers kept going into work. Some lost colleagues and friends as a result. They are the very same people to whom the Prime Minister promised a high-wage economy a year ago before presiding over the biggest fall in living standards since records began. There is still time for the Secretary of State to do the right thing, the brave thing, and show responsibility. Patients, schoolchildren, low-paid workers—the entire country needs a resolution and they will not forgive this Government if they do not step in and resolve this. Even now, at this late hour, I urge the Secretary of State: get around the table and do your job.

    Grant Shapps

    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) used a lot of words to avoid saying the four words, “I condemn the strikes.” She can practise saying it if she likes. I condemn the strikes—will she?

    I remind the House that the hon. Lady is a former union official. She will therefore know better than most that negotiations are always held between the employers and the unions. She calls on the Government to get the parties around the table, but they were around the table. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is right that they are not now, because the union has just walked out to call a press conference to say the strikes are on.

    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley is wrong when she says these strikes are about pay, safety and job cuts. Let us take them in turn. Pay—the unions wrongly told their workers that there would be no pay rise. There will be a pay rise because the pay freeze is coming to an end, so that is untrue.

    Safety—it is unsafe to have people walking down the track to check the condition of the lines when it can be done by trains that can take 70,000 pictures a minute and by drones that can look at the lines from overhead. Safety is about updating outdated working practices. If the hon. Lady cared about safety, she would care about modernisation.

    Job cuts—the hon. Lady will know there has already been a call for voluntary job cuts. In fact, 5,000-plus people came forward, and 2,700 have been accepted. This is about ensuring we have a railway that is fit for the post-covid world. It is therefore crazy that the RMT jumped the gun and, before the talks had a chance to get anywhere, launched into strikes.

    The hon. Lady’s call for the Government to be more involved is a desperate attempt to deflect from the fact the Labour party and its constituency Labour parties have received £250,000 from the RMT. And that is nothing—Labour has received £100 million from the unions over the last 10 years, and Labour Members are here today, as ever, failing to condemn strikes that will hurt ordinary people, that will hurt kids trying to do their GCSEs and A-levels, that will hurt people trying to get to hospital appointments that were delayed during covid, and that will even see veterans miss armed forces celebrations this week.

    There is no excuse for the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team sitting on the fence. I can almost feel her pain as she resists saying the four words, “I condemn the strikes.”

  • Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on the National Rail Strike

    Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement on the National Rail Strike

    The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2022.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the rail strikes. We are now less than eight hours away from the biggest railway strike since 1989—a strike orchestrated by some of the best paid union barons, representing some of the better paid workers in this country, which will cause misery and chaos to millions of commuters.

    This weekend, we have seen union leaders use all the tricks in the book to confuse, to obfuscate and to mislead the public. Not only do they wish to drag the railway back to the 1970s, but they are employing the tactics of bygone unions: deflecting accountability for their strikes on to others; attempting to shift the blame for their action, which will cause disruption and damage to millions of people; and claiming that others are somehow preventing an agreement to their negotiation.

    I do not think the public will be hoodwinked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but we are talking about the families who will be unable to visit their relations, the music fans who are hoping to go to Glastonbury, the students who will be unable to get to their GCSEs and A-level exams, the businesses who are just beginning to recover from covid and people who will miss out on their medical treatment because of these strikes. That is what the Opposition are supporting. They know that this week’s rail strikes, created and organised by the unions, are the full responsibility of the unions.

    Of course, we are all doing our utmost to get the unions and the rail industry to agree a way forward and call off the strikes. In such discussions, it is always the employer and the unions who need to get together and negotiate. In this case, that is the train operating companies, Network Rail and their union representatives. We are not the employer, and we will not undermine the process. [Interruption.] I hear the calls of the Labour leadership for us to get involved somehow, perhaps by inviting the unions for beer and sandwiches to discuss the situation. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that a beer and a curry is a work meeting, but we will be leaving this to the employers, who are the right people to negotiate with the unions. Indeed, the unions are in daily talks with the employers—or at least they were, until they walked out an hour ago to hold a press conference, saying that the strikes would be on.

    Despite these strikes, we are doing everything we can to minimise disruption throughout the entire network. We are working with the civil contingencies secretariat, the Government’s emergency planning team, to keep critical supply chains open wherever possible. Operators will keep as many passenger trains as possible running, although of course with so much disruption to the timetable, that will be very difficult on strike days. It is estimated that around 20% of planned services will operate, focused on key workers, main population centres and critical freight routes. But there will be mass disruption, and we advise passengers to avoid travelling unless absolutely necessary—which, of course, for many it will be. The National Rail Enquiries website will be kept updated with the latest travel information to ensure that passengers can make informed decisions about their travel. Passengers are strongly advised to check before they travel and encouraged to look for alternative means of transportation if their journey is affected, including on the days between the strikes.

    We are looking at a variety of different options for the railways to maintain services amid disruption in the medium and longer term. We can no longer tolerate a position where rail workers can exercise their right to strike without any regard for how the rights of others are affected. Nurses, teachers and other working people who rely on the railway must be able to travel. Minimum service legislation is just one part of that. Minimum service levels are a Government manifesto commitment, and they will require train operators to run a base number of services even in the event of future strike action. It is a system that works well in other countries, including Belgium and France, and so we will be bringing in legislation to protect the travelling public if agreement cannot be reached when major disruption is expected, as with the strikes this week.

    The rhetoric that we have heard from union leaders and Opposition Members over the weekend seems to be focused on widening the division rather than bridging the gap. The whole point of the railway reforms—based on the Williams review, which engaged with the unions very extensively—is to unite and modernise the industry, and just as we cannot reform the railways with obsolete technology, we cannot do so by clinging to obsolete working practices. For example, leisure travel at weekends is currently a huge potential growth area. After covid, people are coming back and are travelling at the weekends more than before. However, under an agreement which dates back to 1919, Sunday working is voluntary on most of the railway, so the industry cannot do what everyone else does—what other businesses and organisations do—and service its customers. Instead, it has to appeal to people to come and work, and that service has sometimes been unavailable, for instance when large football matches are taking place: during the Euro finals, 170 trains were cancelled.

    The industry therefore needs to change. Unions claim that this strike is about a pay freeze, but that is factually incorrect. We are not imposing a pay freeze. The whole point of these reforms is to build a sustainable, growing railway, where every rail worker receives a decent annual pay rise. Let me be clear, however: if modernisation and reform are to work, we must have unions that are prepared to modernise, otherwise there can be no deal. This strike is not about pay, but about outdated unions opposing progress—progress that will secure the railway’s future. These strikes are not only a bid to stop reform; they are critical to the network’s future. If the reforms are not carried out, the strikes will threaten the very jobs of the people who are striking, because they will not allow the railway to operate properly and attract customers back.

    The railway is in a fight . It is in a fight for its life, not just competing with other forms of public and private transport but competing with Teams, Zoom and other forms of remote working. Today, many commuters who three years ago had no alternative but to travel by train have other options, including the option of not travelling at all. Rail has lost a fifth of its passengers and a fifth of its revenue.

    Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have committed £16 billion of emergency taxpayer support—we all know the numbers; that means £600 for every single household in the country—so that not a single rail worker lost his or her job. We have invested £16 billion to keep trains running and ensure that no one at Network Rail or DFT-contracted train operating companies was furloughed. Now, as we recover and people start to travel again, the industry needs to grow its revenues. It needs to attract passengers back, and make the reforms that are necessary for it to compete. The very last thing that it should be doing now is alienating passengers and freight customers with a long and damaging strike. So my message to the workforce is straightforward: “Your union bosses have got you striking under false pretences, and rather than protecting your jobs, they are actually endangering them and the railways’ future.”

    We have a platform for change. We want the unions to work with the industry and the Government to bring a much brighter future to our railways, and that means building an agile and flexible workforce, not one that strikes every time someone suggests an improvement to our railway. Strikes should be the last resort, not the first. They will stop customers choosing rail, they will put jobs at risk, they will cause misery across the country, they will hit businesses that are trying to recover from covid, and they will hurt railway workers themselves. So please, let us stop dividing the railway industry, and let us start working for a brighter future.

  • John Healey – 2022 Speech on the UK and NATO’s Commitment to Ukraine

    John Healey – 2022 Speech on the UK and NATO’s Commitment to Ukraine

    The speech made by John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of Defence, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2022.

    Today marks day 117 since Russia began its brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is now a grim, grinding war of attrition. NATO’s Secretary-General warned last week that the alliance

    “must prepare for the fact that it could take years.”

    Everything that can be done must be done to help to maintain the Ukrainian military’s morale, weaponry and personnel. The Government will continue to have Labour’s full support in the military assistance they provide to Ukraine.

    In April, when responding to the Defence Secretary’s statement in this House, I urged the Government to move to supply

    “the new NATO weapons that Ukraine will need for Putin’s next offensive”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 463.]

    In these last two months, what NATO-standard stock has been supplied from the UK to Ukraine, and how many new contracts for missiles or ammunition production have the MOD now managed to sign and start?

    On Friday, as the Minister said, the Prime Minister offered to train 10,000 new Ukrainian soldiers every three months. This is exactly what is needed. Did President Zelensky accept Britain’s offer? Will these Ukrainian recruits be trained in Britain? Which other NATO nations will be involved in such training?

    As we mark the start of Armed Forces Week, the Labour leader and I had the privilege of visiting NATO’s maritime command and our UK Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood this morning. We wanted to thank our personnel for the service they give to our national and NATO commitments. However, there are serious growing concerns about the UK meeting its NATO commitments, with the failure to reboot defence plans in response to Ukraine, delays to a fully modern warfighting division until 2030, continued uncertainty over Ajax and, of course, further deep cuts to Army numbers.

    The new head of the Army said in an internal message to troops last week that

    “there is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”,

    so why are Ministers pushing ahead with plans to cut another 10,000 soldiers? When will they halt these cuts, and when will they start to rebuild the strength of the British Army to meet the threats that our country and our NATO allies face?

  • Leo Docherty – 2022 Statement on the UK and NATO’s Commitment to Ukraine

    Leo Docherty – 2022 Statement on the UK and NATO’s Commitment to Ukraine

    The statement made by Leo Docherty, the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2022.

    Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state that threatens global security. As set out to the House previously, the United Kingdom and NATO stand with Ukraine. We are providing political and practical support to support its self-defence, and will further strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defence posture. Individual NATO allies, led by the UK, are also supporting Ukraine with lethal aid to ensure that Ukraine wins.

    The United Kingdom was the first country to provide lethal aid, and we have increased our military and aid support, bringing the total budget to £1.3 billion. To date, we have sent over 6,900 anti-tank missiles; five air defence systems, including Starstreak anti-air missiles; 120 armoured fighting vehicles, including a small number of Stormers; 1,360 anti-structure munitions; 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives; and 400,000 rounds of small-arms munitions. In addition, we have supplied over 200,000 items of non-lethal aid, including more than 82,000 helmets; more than 8,000 body armour kits; range finders; and medical equipment. As announced on 6 June 2022, we are providing cutting edge multiple-launch rocket systems, which can strike targets up to 80 kilometres away with pinpoint accuracy, offering a significant boost in capability to the Ukrainian armed forces. On 17 June, the Prime Minister offered to launch a major training operation for Ukrainian forces, with the potential to train up to 10,000 soldiers every three months—120 days.

    We are currently supplying significant air power to NATO, including increased air patrols, with both Typhoons and F-35s for NATO air policing. We have also deployed four additional Typhoons to Cyprus to patrol NATO’s eastern border. That means that we now have a full squadron of Royal Air Force fighter jets in southern Europe, ready to support NATO tasking. The United Kingdom has contributed more troops than any other ally to NATO’s enhanced forward presence. UK troops will also be deploying a company-sized sub-unit to Bulgaria to work bilaterally alongside our Bulgarian counterparts for up to six months, enhancing interoperability. The PM will meet NATO leaders again for next week’s Madrid summit, where NATO will agree the new strategic concept to set the direction of the alliance for the next decade and will agree long-term improvements to our deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United Kingdom’s commitment to the alliance and European security is unconditional and enduring. Our commitment to article 5 of the Washington treaty is iron clad. We stand ready to defend our allies.

    Mr Ellwood

    First, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the flag-raising ceremony that you hosted today to mark Armed Forces Week?

    The Prime Minister was right to visit Ukraine last week. The UK has been an exemplar in our support to that country compared with many of our NATO allies. But Russia is not losing and Ukraine is not winning. The Prime Minister said, “Prepare for a long war”, and the new head of the British Army seeks to reconfigure our land forces to potentially face Russia on the battlefield. This all starkly illustrates that long-term European security is threatened not just by the utility of force but a wider conflict between the west and growing authoritarianism.

    However, future generations may ask of NATO, “Why did you not put that fire out in Ukraine when you could have?”—by securing the port of Odesa, for example, rather than instead allowing Putin to claim a win and take his fight elsewhere. The penny is dropping in this regard. If we now recognise that our world is becoming more dangerous, Britain should lead a coalition of the willing that offers Ukraine the scale of support that it requires. Recognising this new picture requires us to review our own defence posture. We can certainly be proud of what Britain has done in upgrading its battle presence in the Baltics, leading the way in training Ukrainians and providing lethal weapons systems, but I say to the Minister that the tempo of these duties is unsustainable.

    We are overloading our troops with those widening commitments and we are not replenishing our defence stocks fast enough. All three services are now too small to manage the ever-greater burden that we are going to place on them. The cuts set out in the 2021 integrated review to personnel and military equipment must now be reversed.

    Does the Minister agree that once again, Britain finds itself leading other European allies in spelling out the scale of the threat that the continent now faces, and stepping forward when other nations hesitate to confront that threat? We cannot do that on a peacetime defence budget of 2.2%; it is time to upgrade our defence posture and spending to 3% if we are serious about preventing the spread of conflict in Europe.

    Leo Docherty

    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to some of my right hon. Friend’s points. He said that Russia is not losing in Ukraine, with which I would take issue. I think that Russia is losing and that it was losing from the point of invasion. Its catastrophic losses in the west of the country and the way that it has had to refocus in the east describe that strategic loss, so I disagree with him on that.

    Our domestic response will always be threat-based. My right hon. Friend made some remarks about whether NATO forces should have been deployed to Ukraine in anticipation of the Russian invasion. Our judgment is—and collectively, everyone would judge—that we got the balance right between providing reassurance and effect, while avoiding the direct conflict that would have resulted immediately from putting NATO forces directly into Ukraine.

    As I said, we are a threat-based organisation. In making the argument for defence expenditure, we need to understand that there are three basic points of context that I ask my right hon. Friend to take note of. First, we do everything as part of the NATO alliance. We are one of a 30-member defensive alliance—soon to be 32—and because of that, we are a great deal stronger than we are separately. One of the significant lessons for the Russian military machine is how exposed it is by being alone. We are stronger as an alliance; as an alliance, we massively outnumber any kind of effect the Russians can bring to bear.

    Secondly, it is important to recognise that we acknowledged the significant threat posed by Russia as part of our defence Command Paper, which came out of the integrated review and was released in March 2021; many right hon. and hon. Members will have read it. Page 5, paragraph 1.4 leads with the fact that

    “Russia continues to pose the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”

    In terms of our doctrine and our response, that is not new to UK national defence. That is a really important contextual thing to understand.

    Thirdly, that is why we are making good use of the £24-billion uplift that we have had under this Government, which is driving forward the agility, deployability and lethality that we need in the new global context. Manifold lessons will be drawn from the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the vulnerability of armour and of large bodies of troops; the potency of technology and remote fires; and the urgent importance of having a fully modernised military with match-fit technology. That is what the integrated review and the defence Command Paper do.

    We have more money than we have ever had—£24 billion more than we would have had otherwise. We will always keep things under review, but we should be confident that doctrinally and militarily, in terms of kit and equipment, we are on the right lines.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Speech on Trust in Policing

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Speech on Trust in Policing

    The speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 17 June 2022.

    Thank you, Leonita.

    Not only for that introduction and your inspiring words…

    …but for everything you’re doing to ensure the voice, opinions and ideas of young people are heard loud and clear as we develop policies and programmes to reduce violence in our city.

    As Sophie said, what you do is vital.

    So please – let’s have another round of applause for Leonita.

    Next year is the 30th anniversary of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence.

    It’s as important as ever that we not only remember and celebrate Stephen’s life, but that we acknowledge – and reflect upon – his legacy.

    The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry found that the Metropolitan Police Service was institutionally racist, and that institutional racism existed in other police forces around the country.

    This judgement was a landmark moment in the history of British race relations…

    …triggering far-reaching reforms to policing, public services and criminal law in this country.

    There’s no doubt that the police and criminal justice system have made significant and positive steps forward since then.

    But it’s become painfully clear that further reform – on a far-reaching scale – is now urgently needed.

    And let me be frank, I consider this to be one of the most important speeches I will give as Mayor.

    Because after nearly two hundred years since the creation of the Met, policing in our city has reached a crossroads.

    And ensuring we take the right path is crucial to the future of our city.

    At the outset, I must and want to put on record again that there are tens of thousands of incredible, incredibly brave and decent police officers in the Met…

    …dedicated public servants who go above and beyond every day to keep us safe.

    Just last week a Metropolitan police officer ran into a house-fire to save a family.

    And, every year, the Police Bravery Awards highlight some remarkable stories of courage in London:

    From two police officers saving the life of a seven-year-old girl who was being attacked.

    To officers saving the lives of two teenagers after they used themselves as human shields.

    The job the police do – protecting us and upholding the law of the land – makes everything else possible.

    It’s the bedrock upon which all else can flourish.

    And we owe the men and women who risk their lives – often in the knowledge that they have children and loved ones to get home to after a shift – a huge debt of gratitude.

    So let’s be clear:

    Talking about the need for urgent police reform is not being anti-police.

    Far from it.

    In fact – it’s the exact opposite.

    It’s about believing the police can be excellent.

    And it’s about facing up to some hard truths so that we can ensure we have the best, most effective and most professional police force for Londoners.

    A police force that is second-to-none at bearing down on crime, bringing people to justice and keeping our city safe.

    Throughout my time as Mayor, I’ve defended London’s police when I think they’ve been unfairly criticised.

    And this is something I’ll always do.

    No other Mayor has invested more in the police than I have.

    Good officers are one of the most valuable and precious resources we have in London.

    But given what’s at stake, we have a duty to be honest about the extent of the problems and the systemic and organisational changes that are urgently required within the Met, rather than seeking to downplay or shy away from the challenge we face.

    The reality is that a series of appalling scandals have not only exposed deep cultural problems within the Met, but have contributed to an acute crisis of confidence in London’s police force.

    A crisis that has left trust in the Met police at rock bottom among too many communities – many of whom – if we’re being honest – already had little faith in the police force.

    The latest crisis comes in the wake of:

    The kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.

    The heavy-handed policing of the vigil held in Sarah’s memory.

    Two police officers sharing pictures of the murdered sisters, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman.

    The failures during the Stephen Port investigation that probably contributed to the deaths of his final three victims – Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth and Jack Taylor – after the murder of Anthony Walgate – with accusations that homophobia prevented the police from catching the serial killer sooner.

    And the shameful strip-search of Child Q – a 15-year-old Black girl whose degrading treatment was likely influenced by racism.

    The testimony of Child Q’s mother – about how her daughter has gone from a bubbly, happy-go-lucky girl to someone who’s self-harming, in need of therapy and screaming in her sleep – has been utterly heart-breaking.

    And I’ll never forget the first time I read the shocking Operation Hotton report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the police watchdog, just over four months ago.

    That exposed sickening evidence of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination and misogyny among police officers at Charing Cross station.

    The messages shared between officers threatened rape, glorified sexual violence and were openly racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic.

    One read:

    “My dad kidnapped some African children and used them to make dog food.”

    Another:

    “Some uniform or plain clothes work on Somalian rats… I battered one the other day…”

    And another:

    “You ever slapped your Mrs?… It makes them love you more…”

    I’m not going to read any more, don’t worry.

    But perhaps what was most striking – and revealing – was that these officers felt comfortable sharing deeply offensive messages in Whatsapp groups with other officers – messages that were only made public due to an independent investigation.

    And this points to a much wider problem – a damaging culture.

    And – damningly – the Independent Office for Police Conduct concluded as much.

    Clearly, these issues were not isolated or historic, and cannot simply be explained away as the actions of just a few bad apples.

    I know that what’s been exposed in recent months has profoundly affected countless Londoners, who have every right to be outraged and to be demanding answers.

    These are feelings I share.

    The scandals have left me sick to my stomach – disgusted and extremely angry.

    Partly because they remind me – and I’m sure many other Londoners – of the bad old days of the Met.

    The Met I knew from my childhood.

    Growing up in the 1970s and 80s on a council estate in south London, it was commonplace to hear stories from friends and family members of racist, sexist and abusive behaviour by police officers.

    There was a palpable sense in my community that the presence of the police on our local streets did not offer reassurance or a sense of protection, but rather fear…

    …the fear of being unfairly criminalised or mistreated.

    In my life – and during the course of my career – I’ve seen and felt the damage that this kind of breakdown of trust can cause.

    It makes it harder to tackle crime.

    It prevents victims and witnesses of violence from coming forward.

    It discourages many girls and women from reporting rape, domestic abuse and sexual harassment.

    And it leads to local communities – the eyes and ears of the police on the ground – becoming less likely to work with officers when, for example, they’re worried about young people getting involved in criminal gangs and violence.

    This affects us all, and the safety of everyone in our city.

    This is why the damage to trust and confidence in the police is not a side issue or marginal concern that can be downplayed or dismissed.

    Trust is everything.

    We have a longstanding tradition in this country of policing by consent.

    It’s the very foundation upon which our whole system of policing rests.

    At the heart of this approach is the recognition that for policing to be effective, public approval, respect and confidence in the service is paramount.

    When this trust is eroded, our model of policing – and thereby public safety – is put at risk.

    Trust is absolutely fundamental to preventing crime, to solving crime and to ensuring we have the best possible police service for Londoners.

    This is why you simply cannot divorce the deep cultural issues that clearly exist within the Met from its wider performance as an institution.

    The two are inextricably linked.

    To put it simply:

    The more inclusive the culture, the more trust the police can command…

    The more trust the police can command, the more they can drive down crime.

    And – in turn – the more crime falls, the more trust the police can win.

    It’s this virtuous circle we must create – replacing the depressing downward spiral of recent years.

    During my time as Mayor, violent crime has fallen in the capital.

    We’re managing to buck national trends:

    Since 2016 when I was first elected:

    Gun crime is down by 30 per cent.

    Knife crime with injury is down by 11 per cent.

    Knife crime where the victim is under 25 is down by 24 per cent.

    And the number of teenagers murdered in our city is down by 64 per cent in the first five months of this year.

    Of course, we’re not complacent.

    These are not just numbers – they’re people.

    One murder on our streets is one too many – leaving parents, siblings and friends grieving.

    We cannot rest.

    And if we’re to continue making progress, ensuring communities across London have trust in our police force is going to be critical.

    This is particularly the case when it comes to tackling the senseless knife crime that results in the murder of young Londoners, including a disproportionate number of young Black people, many just teenagers… just children.

    We know that violent crime is not a problem we can solve simply through enforcement alone.

    We’re never going to be able to arrest our way out of this problem.

    Prevention and early intervention are key parts of the puzzle, where trust is integral.

    Because it means working in partnership with families, local communities, schools, charities, the NHS, youth clubs, and the police… to prevent children from being sucked into criminal gangs and violence in the first place. This is a public health approach.

    So how can we turn things around?

    As Mayor, I’ve already taken a series of steps since 2016 – using the limited powers and resources available to me – to boost trust and confidence in our police force.

    This includes:

    A huge push to recruit more officers from London’s Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, as well as more women.

    Investing to protect visible neighbourhood policing.

    And the world’s biggest rollout of body-worn cameras to London’s frontline officers.

    We’ve also launched a new strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.

    We’ve put trust and confidence at the heart of our new Police and Crime Plan;

    We’ve comprehensively overhauled the gangs Matrix, removing over a thousand young Black men from the database.

    And we’ve published an Action Plan to address the concerns about the disproportionate use of certain police powers on Black Londoners, including stop and search.

    But this must just be the start.

    We now need to see nothing less than a new contract forged between the police and the public.

    This means root and branch reforms to improve policing to ensure the Met can deliver the basics better.

    It means an overhaul of disciplinary processes.

    And it means systemic change to the Met’s culture.

    But before any of this, before any of this, Londoners need to hear the leadership of the Met publicly acknowledge the scale and depth of the problems.

    Something which will be a crucial first step for the next Commissioner to start rebuilding trust and credibility with our communities.

    Look, no one expects the police to be perfect, or to get things right all the time.

    But they do expect the Met to be honest and open about their mistakes – to identify problems and to admit when they’re happening.

    It’s a sign of confidence, not weakness.

    And it’s essential to rebuilding trust.

    I make no apology for demanding this.

    It’s not about being political.

    It’s democracy in action.

    It’s the checks and balances of power, without which we’d still be living with the kind of policing we saw before the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

    My job as the elected Mayor of this great city is not only to support the police in bearing down on crime, but to hold the Met to account.

    And I’ll never shirk from these duties.

    That’s why I want to make crystal clear today I won’t support the appointment of a new Commissioner unless:

    They can demonstrate they understand the true extent of the cultural and organisational problems within the Met.

    That they appreciate the moral and operational imperatives to confront them head on.

    And they have a convincing plan to reduce crime further, improve detection rates and bring more criminals to justice.

    London needs a reforming Commissioner.

    Someone in the mould of Sir Robert Mark – who got the job in 1972.

    He became known for his determination to root out corruption and criminality.

    For the way he took steps to improve relations with communities in London.

    For making the Met more transparent.

    And for driving forward efforts to make the police more diverse.

    Although some of the issues the Met faces today are of course different, there’s no doubt that we need someone with a similar drive to reform.

    Not just of the culture and standards, but of some of the fundamentals of the organisation.

    We also need someone who acknowledges that they’re never going to be able to solve all the problems alone.

    This means the type of leadership that:

    Understands and accepts the Met needs to improve.

    And is ready and confident enough to bring in outside expertise and oversight to ensure we get the systemic, organisational change – from top to bottom – that’s required.

    The next Commissioner needs to ensure that every rank and layer of the Met is working towards a shared goal and is properly held to account.

    In short, the next Commissioner must ‘get it’.

    They must be a reformer.

    They must be humble in accepting the limitations of the Met, and open to learning and constant improvement.

    And they must put forward a comprehensive plan to deal with these deep-rooted problems with urgency and conviction.

    I’ll accept nothing less.

    This is my promise to Londoners.

    I’ve dedicated a large part of my working life to trying to make policing better.

    And – as Mayor – I’ll not stop until we’ve delivered the police reforms and step change in policing culture that our city deserves.

    To achieve this – and to forge a new contract between the police and the public – we need to see a whole host of new commitments and reforms:

    More robust vetting of new and serving police officers.

    Better recruitment processes to ensure we only get the right, top quality people in the job.

    Far-reaching changes to the misconduct process, which includes making it much faster.

    Proactive procedures to weed out those who should never have been allowed to become police officers in the first place.

    Strengthened IT monitoring within the Met to help identify corrupt officers and inappropriate behaviour.

    Ensuring officers and staff have confidence to come forward as whistleblowers.

    Better training and supervision – particularly sergeants and inspectors who are so influential in shaping the frontline police culture and delivering the policing Londoners expect.

    Clear steps on how the Met will not just tackle racism, but proactively be an anti-racist institution.

    Greater community oversight and engagement with Londoners from all backgrounds.

    And a first-class emergency response, which protects Londoners, supports victims and brings those who commit crime to justice.

    Ensuring the Met is the best in the world at the bread-and-butter issues of policing will always be a key part of rebuilding trust.

    Because it’s about assuring Londoners that our police force will always be there for them – and for all our communities – in their time of need.

    We must also redouble our efforts to hire more officers from diverse backgrounds.

    The Met is bigger and more diverse today than at any time in its history, but we have a long way to go.

    And so I want to take this opportunity now to appeal to Londoners from all backgrounds to apply to join the Met police.

    Now, more than ever, we need you.

    London needs you.

    Because you can help change the culture of the Met from within.

    You could help serve our great city.

    And you could help us to ensure we have a police force that is truly representative of the communities it exists to serve.

    I was instrumental in the establishment of the independent review of culture and standards at the Met, and I look forward to examining Baroness Louise Casey’s report and considering any recommendations she makes.

    I also supported the Home Secretary’s decision to order a full inquiry into the issues raised by the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.

    Because I know this tragedy has done so much to damage the faith of women and girls in the police.

    As we move forward, I’m keen to work both with the Home Secretary and the new Commissioner to ensure we act on the findings of these reports and the reforms I’ve outlined today.

    This is especially true with regard to changes to the misconduct process, which can only be made with the Home Secretary and the Government’s approval.

    We need to work together.

    Because this goes much wider than London.

    As the Police Foundation has said, the cultural and systemic problems in London – which has led to in their words “a crisis of public confidence” – are also present across the country, and will also require sweeping reforms at a national level.

    I’m hopeful that together – in partnership with the next Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Government, members of our police force and London’s communities – that we can:

    Deliver the reforms that are needed to create a modern police service, fit for the future.

    That we can drive out racism, misogyny, discrimination and bullying.

    And that we can restore the trust and confidence of Londoners in their police force.

    In 21st century Britain.

    In an open, diverse city like ours.

    It’s essential that all of London’s communities feel like the police are there not to threaten or criminalise them, but to protect and serve them.

    I’ve heard time and again – directly from the parents of girls and Black teenagers, and young people across our city – that what they want more than anything else is for their children to be safe, to feel safe, and to feel like the police is there to protect them – and is on their side.

    On their side.

    They should expect nothing less.

    It’s what I want when my daughters go out in London.

    It’s what every parent and Londoner wants.

    And we mustn’t relent until this is the case.

    Let me just finish with this important point:

    I fundamentally believe in the Met.

    And I’m proud to be London’s Police and Crime Commissioner.

    I know we have thousands of brilliant police officers who not only share my concerns, but my aspirations for better policing in London.

    I’ve spoken to many who are just as disgusted as I am by what’s come to light in recent times – and feel badly let down by their colleagues and the toxic culture that’s been allowed to take hold.

    They’re desperate to play their part in raising standards, aiding organisational change within the Met, and ensuring the bond with the communities they serve is restored and strengthened.

    People who say that when we come down hard on police officers who behave badly we are somehow reducing confidence in the police are totally wrong.

    It’s the opposite.

    And it sells our good officers short.

    We need to create the right culture in policing to ensure the good officers have the trust of the public, which will make it far easier for them to do their job.

    It’s the decent police officers we have in the Met that continue to give me hope that we can meet the challenges ahead.

    Because I know that with the right leadership at the top of the Met, they are the ones who can do what’s needed to win back public trust.

    Of course, history tells us that none of this is going to be easy.

    Change on this scale at the speed we need is difficult.

    But we owe it to Stephen Lawrence, to Sarah Everard, to Child Q, to all the victims of the recent scandals, to all their friends and families, and to all Londoners –– to continue the struggle with fierce determination and an unflinching sense of purpose.

    Because change is long overdue.

    And delivering it will be crucial to building a better, fairer and safer London for everyone, and for all our communities.

    Londoners deserve the best policing in the world – and I believe we have the potential to get there.

    Thank you.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Free School Meals

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Free School Meals

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 19 June 2022.

    Free school meals were something my family relied upon – and every child in London deserves that safety net.

    With the summer holidays on the horizon it is essential that the Government act now to reinstate the meal voucher system to give families dignity and nutritional choice over the summer. This should then be followed by the introduction of universal free school meals for all primary school children from the start of the new school year in September.

    Multiple London councils are already leading the way on this and showing what can be done if we put the health and wellbeing of our young people first in such perilous economic times. It is time for the Government to step up.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2022 Speech to the Times CEO Summit

    Rachel Reeves – 2022 Speech to the Times CEO Summit

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Times CEO Summit in London on 16 June 2022.

    Thank you Dominic, and thanks to the Times for hosting us today.

    Since being appointed Shadow Chancellor I have had the privilege to visit inspiring British businesses.

    From Castleton Mills, once a key part of West Yorkshire’s textiles industry – now reimagined as a creative, collaborative space housing freelancers and start-ups.

    To world-recognised names like Rolls Royce in Derby – leading pioneering research to develop carbon-neutral aviation.

    And Oxford Nanopore, one of our leading technology and life science firms.

    Britain has huge economic strengths. Our leading universities, our language, our geography, our excellence in sectors from financial services to life sciences to cultural industries.

    But questions of wealth creation have become too marginal to our politics.

    After starting my career as an economist at the Bank of England, I spent several years at HBOS in Halifax.

    I know what business can bring. Not just in prosperity and work which pays well – but in pride and identity.

    After a decade in which people have seen their incomes stagnate and their public services cut to the bone, I don’t only see the task of building a more just society as a moral responsibility – though it is that – but also as the route to a dynamic economy with wealth creation at its core.

    Through which opportunity is widely shared, and through which we can break out of our cycle of low growth, low productivity and underinvestment.

    Labour is pro-worker and pro-business in the knowledge that the success of both is crucial to our country’s economic success.

    A new partnership between government and business will be the foundation of everything the next Labour government will hope to achieve.

    This a challenging moment.

    The politics of stagflation and energy security have come to the fore for the first time in half a century.

    But this present crisis is just the latest chapter in a longer economic story. Between 1997 and 2010, the UK economy grew at an average of 2.1 percent a year, but since then, growth has averaged just 1.5 percent a year.

    And now the OECD forecasts that the UK will have zero growth next year – putting us behind every G20 economy bar Russia.

    I don’t accept that economic decline is an inevitability.

    But we do face a succession of challenges if we are to return to strong growth and shared prosperity.

    Our success will rely on the leadership of both government and business.

    I know businesses increasingly recognise their wider role in strengthening our economy and society.

    But there is an onus on government to rethink too.

    It is no longer enough – if it ever was – for government to simply get out of the way.

    In America, the Biden administration is taking a more active role in tackling structural economic weaknesses. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen calls this approach ‘modern supply side economics.’

    For the next Labour government, such an approach will mean government applying itself more concertedly to driving up the productive potential of our economy. By boosting labour supply through providing workers with the skills, healthcare, and childcare they need to flourish. By using its power of procurement to support businesses here in Britain. And as a strategic partner of business.

    Let me talk more about that final point – strategic partnership.

    I want to see UK companies thrive, to see great ideas come to fruition and for the UK to be a great place in which to invest.

    But I don’t believe all that happens in a vacuum.

    The state has to be active in fostering the conditions for our country to prosper, whether that is in sponsoring world leading research, getting the regulatory environment right, or in helping bridge the gap between a fantastic concept and the reality of its commercial production.

    The last Labour Government developed an active industrial strategy on these lines – and for all my differences with the the Cameron and May governments, their efforts to continue this work were welcome.

    But now these efforts have been abandoned – and the industrial strategy scrapped.

    And for no clear reason, other than an ideological objection.

    Ideology won’t help great British companies, but good partnership will.

    That’s why Labour will bring local, regional and national leaders together with businesses, workers and universities to support the growth of high-tech, competitive industries of the future. And to map out a better way forward for the high-employment, low-productivity sectors on which we all rely – what I call the everyday economy.

    But an approach to strategic partnership can’t stop there.

    I agree with the director of the CBI, Tony Danker, that what is required to break us out of our cycle of underinvestment and low productivity is ‘catalytic public investment’.

    Labour’s climate investment pledge would provide just that, and crowd in private sector investment – to create new markets and bolster existing ones.

    And a modern supply side approach cannot and must not ignore the task of making Brexit work for British businesses and consumers.

    So we must address the flaws in the Brexit deal hitting our food and drinks manufacturers, creative industries, professional services and more – through repairing and strengthening our supply chains, and building on the UK-EU trade deal to cut red tape for exporters.

    We need to adopt an approach that seeks to solve problems in a practical way for UK companies, and aims to build trust – rather than continually retreating to the issue of Brexit as a domestic political wedge.

    Any competitive market economy must offer opportunities for new, innovative and agile businesses to flourish.

    Innovation is a great British strength. It’s in our DNA.

    We have immense resources in the creativity and drive of our entrepreneurs, and the innovative capacity of our universities.

    Fast-growing firms already contribute £1 trillion to our economy and employ 3.2 million people.

    But something I have heard repeatedly is a real worry about the stubborn obstacles preventing many of them from scaling up, and the small number of start-ups listing in the UK.

    Labour’s mission is to build an institutional ecosystem enabling the market access, finance, and skills that new and growing businesses need.

    So today I am launching a review, led by a panel of entrepreneurs and experts including the economist and former Treasury Minister Lord Jim O’Neill, and tasked with charting a course to ensure Britain is the best place to start and to grow a business.

    The review will be given a remit to ask the difficult questions and present solutions – about the incentives for growing businesses here compared with other countries, about access to capital – especially patient capital, about the skills, structures and incentives presented to our universities to spin out new businesses, and about how we extend opportunities to a more diverse range of entrepreneurs.

    I consider it a key task for the next Labour government – a central part of a modern supply side approach – to provide answers to those questions, and to unleash the next generation of innovators and wealth creators.

    The method I have outlined today is a modern supply-side approach, with government as a provider economic security, enabler of a highly-skilled workforce, and a strategic partner to business.

    The object is a stronger society – underpinned by a thriving market economy in which opportunity is shared widely.

    But to realise this, we need a different kind of leadership. Upholding strong institutions, practising transparent decision-making, and showing respect for business.

    Keir Starmer’s Labour Party – proudly pro-worker and proudly pro-business – will offer that leadership.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1995 Speech on the Gas Bill

    Michael Heseltine – 1995 Speech on the Gas Bill

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the then President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons on 13 March 1995.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    The assumption that the supply of gas to the public can best be undertaken on a monopoly basis dates from 1847, when a committee of inquiry led to the passing of the first Gasworks Clauses Act. The conclusion that monopoly was the necessary form of organisation was based on the poor economics of laying competing pipelines and the associated disruption in terms of street works that that was found to entail.

    The idea of separating the trading functions from the operation of the distribution pipes has emerged progressively over the past few years. We have an active competitive market in the supply of gas to industrial and commercial customers. These customers have already seen savings of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. or more as a result of that competition.

    The Bill provides a sound foundation for the phased introduction of the benefits of competition to the 18 million domestic gas customers in Great Britain. The Bill will empower customers to demand the levels of service that they want. It will provide a powerful incentive to innovation and efficiency, and it will provide a strong downward pressure on average prices. Already since privatisation, we have seen a fall in the price of gas before VAT of more than 20 per cent. in real terms and an even larger fall in the standing charge. Alongside that, British Gas has invested £9 billion in the United Kingdom since 1986, including a £2 billion programme of mains replacement to improve safety.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

    The President of the Board of Trade used the word “average”. Can he illuminate that—[Interruption.] I do not think that the Minister for Energy and Industry needs to tell the right hon. Gentleman the answer. He does not need help in that way. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will happen to low-use consumers of gas? Will their bills go up substantially, as is being argued?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I can try to help the hon. Gentleman. “Average” is a complicated idea. One has to take the lowest prices and the highest prices, put them all together and divide them by the number of consumers. Out of that calculation comes what we customarily called, when I was at school, an average. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that I did not need to refer to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry for that remarkable piece of memory of my childhood years.

    Mr.Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

    I do not want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman on the definition of “average”. He will be aware of the danger that a person walking through a river with an average depth of 4 ft 6 in may drown in the middle. Is he not aware of the danger, within the average charges, to rural areas? If charges are required to reflect the costs of the supply of gas, the charges in rural areas may increase disproportionately, albeit within the average, which will hit some people hard.

    Mr.Heseltine

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, it has been suggested that because of the transportation charge, there may be a differential of between plus and minus 2 per cent., depending on the area. That has to be set against the forecasts of the companies anxious to enter the market. They can see economies of up to 10 per cent. in overall prices. Those matters will be dealt with considerably in the licences that the regulator will issue. The details of the licences will appropriately be explored in Committee, if the Bill receives a Second Reading.

    Mr.Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

    Is not the key point that over the past 20 or 30 years, gas has expanded from covering 7 per cent. of households to about 50 per cent.? Many people in rural areas wish that gas could reach them. If the transportation variation is so small compared with the rest—except when oil prices are very low—most people will be glad that gas has been extended to more people.

    Mr.Heseltine

    That is absolutely right. That is why my hon. Friend will have welcomed the figure that I gave for investment by British Gas in widening and modernising its facilities; that investment amounts to £9 billion since 1986. That money has been obtained without recourse to the public purse because it has been raised in the private market.

    Mr.Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central)

    Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House on how he believes that the Bill will proceed in terms of the transportation charge? First, there is the geographical point, which he explained to the House. Secondly, there is the variable and the fixed part of the gas charge which, as he probably realises, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry brought to the attention of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any assurances that the average price for TransCo was at the lower end? Both the right hon. Gentleman and the regulator accept the figure of £15. Can he give assurances that the cross-subsidy, which is now built into the price, will continue and that it will not be removed in the near future?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman puts the case very fairly, in asking about the £15 standard charge that is built into the proposals. That matter is subject in the end to the regulatory regime, but obviously there would be no point in changing the regime shortly after it had been introduced. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the answer that I have given.

    In formulating our proposals, we have been careful to ensure that safety will remain a top priority. We asked the Health and Safety Commission for a detailed report on our proposals. That report was published last week and we have accepted it.

    It is central to our proposals that every supplier will have an obligation to supply on request any domestic customer covered by its licence. It will charge for gas against publicly available price schedules. There will be a number of measures to discourage cherry picking of the more attractive customers and rules to deal with price discrimination by nationally or locally dominant suppliers. At the same time, market entrants will be allowed to choose pricing structures that meet consumers’ needs. If some new suppliers wish to enter the market on the basis of a standing charge set at zero, as one has suggested that it may, we would not wish to stand in its way.

    We shall ensure that the requirement for special services to pensioners, the disabled or the blind and to those who have genuine difficulties paying for their gas should continue. That includes important services such as the free gas safety check for pensioners or disabled people who live alone and the provision of a range of special controls and adaptors to help with the use of gas appliances. The current requirements for service in those areas will be maintained and, in some cases, enhanced. All suppliers will have to bear their share of the social obligations to those customers, but there will be arrangements in the licences for a levy to share the costs of those services in certain circumstances if they fall disproportionately on a particular supplier.

    Mr.Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

    The Minister referred to social obligations. Does he feel that the Government have any social obligation to the many Sids and Mrs. Sids who were beguiled by Government legislation, persuaded to buy shares in British Gas and who had not expected that, in the short time to which he referred a moment ago, such a dramatic change in their circumstances would be effected?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman has made an important contribution, but is he quite sure that he has the right industry? We are talking about the gas industry this afternoon, not the electricity industry.

    Mr.Hardy

    Sid was gas.

    Mr.Heseltine

    I understand that. The complaints of his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) are about the electricity industry, not the gas industry. If I may say so, it is a quite bizarre reversal of fortune for Labour Members to know that there are even things called shareholders, let alone to rise to their feet to defend them.

    Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) rose—

    Mr. Heseltine

    I thought that the Labour party was interested in customers, consumers and the public. Indeed, the object of this legislation is to reduce prices for the people who buy the gas.

    Dr. Cunningham

    I am talking about this Bill. The Minister mentioned a levy on all providers. That is not in the Bill and the House has not yet had the advantage of seeing the licences, because they have not been published. Is he telling the House, and is he giving a guarantee, that that matter is agreed between himself and the Director General of Gas Supply?

    Mr. Heseltine

    When the right hon. Gentleman gets into the detail of the Bill, he will find that the powers to impose a levy are in the legislation.

    Dr. Cunningham

    Who will decide?

    Mr. Heseltine

    From the licences around, the regulator would decide whether that was a necessary development. The power to levy a charge to ensure that those services are protected is in the legislation.

    Dr. Cunningham

    Yes, we understand that, but that was not really the point of question. The power is there, but is the right hon. Gentleman guaranteeing that it will be implemented, and is he guaranteeing that the director general will ensure that that power is used in the way that he suggests?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that the Government’s intention is to ensure that the services that we are talking about are protected for the benefit of those who depend on them. The power in the Bill therefore ensures that the opportunity to do that exists. If the regulator could find other ways of doing that through the licensing system, that would achieve the same ends. However, that is not in any way a substitute for our determination that those services should be maintained.

    Dr. Cunningham

    It is the case, then, that it is quite possible that the director general could ensure that those services continue by making their costs fall on the consumers concerned.

    Mr.Heseltine

    Not in a way that would act adversely against the Government’s intentions in introducing this legislation. That is the point. The Government are determined to preserve the social implications of the legislation, and the powers to do that are there in the ability to levy in the way that I outlined. I do not in any way criticise the right hon. Member for Copeland for pressing me on the point, because it is important and it is one that the Standing Committee will want to consider when we get to the details. I wholly accept and welcome that as the point is very important.

    Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)

    My right hon. Friend has just said that what we are seeing, or about to see, is a total revolution in the energy industry. Does he believe that one way to stop the scare stories that are being put about by Opposition Members to the effect that those on low income and the disabled will lose out, may be to guarantee to people—particularly during the transitional period—that the present British Gas standards are an absolute minimum and that that will be enshrined in a code of practice, which the regulator will have to follow in the legislation? Would not that shut up Opposition Members?

    Mr. Heseltine

    My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. However, without committing ourselves to a code of practice, the Government’s intention is to ensure the outcome that my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House: in other words, the standards of British Gas today are the minimum standards. How we ensure that that happens is an issue that we shall have to resolve in detail. However, it is irresponsible and unforgivable for the Opposition to suggest that somehow or other those minimum standards will not be maintained. They will be maintained.

    Sir Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scares being raised by the Labour party are very familiar to Conservative Members, because they were raised when we privatised British Telecom? At that time, Labour Members said in the House that all the telephone boxes would be closed after privatisation, but the outcome has been that there are 50 per cent. more telephone boxes and 96 per cent. of them are working.

    Mr.Heseltine

    My hon. Friend reminds us, if we needed reminding, that every piece of competition-enhancing or privatising legislation put through the House by this Government has been subjected to total misrepresentation, deliberately and cynically, by the Opposition parties in order to try to persuade us not to proceed. When we have proceeded, their forecasts have turned out to be misleading and worrying for the particular groups of people on behalf of whom Opposition Members claim to speak.

    Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

    What the Minister is saying about the maintenance of minimum standards and social responsibility is utter balderdash. Can he answer my question without reference to all the President’s men beside him? If what he says is the case, why are there 60 fewer home service advisers to visit old people and disabled people, to advise them on the adaption of gas equipment? Without reference to all the President’s men, can he tell me why those minimum standards are being reduced day by day?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman is complaining about the existing situation. We are trying to introduce competition to improve the existing situation.

    I have never been ashamed to turn to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry, to seek his guidance on a matter in respect of which he is a well-known authority. Usually we manage to reach an agreed view, which I then present at the Dispatch Box. That is very different from what we see happening in the Labour party, where leading spokesmen fight each other to get to the Dispatch Box to give the different views of the Labour party’s current policy.

    We have a bizarre situation in which the Labour party is largely absent from the debate this afternoon because it is now trying to agree its new policy on privatisation. We know perfectly well that when Labour Members have agreed, 53 per cent. will believe that they have won and 47 per cent. will believe that they have lost. If the Labour party ever came to power — which heaven forfend—half its members would sit on the Back Benches opposing the government in which they had been elected to serve. They would then talk to us about divisions in the Conservative party.

    Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

    Can I bring my right hon. Friend back to the question of special interest groups? He will be aware of my special constituency interest in blind people. Can he confirm that blind people will still be provided with Braille controls by all gas suppliers?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I know of my hon. Friend’s interest and I am pleased to be able to give him a simple answer, which is yes.

    Mr.Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I have given way enough. We must maintain the high standard of the debate and keep to the intellectually coherent case that I wish to deploy without that case being knocked about by the roughnecks on the Opposition Benches.

    Mr.Spearing rose—

    Mr. Heseltine

    I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks for those roughnecks, but if he will forgive me, I shall try to make some progress.

    Mr.Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)

    The President has the biggest neck.

    Mr.Heseltine

    I may have the biggest neck, but there are parts of the hon. Gentleman with which I cannot compete.

    The Bill retains the duty to promote energy efficiency. It creates a new environmental duty, which would, for example, require the director general to take into account the environmental impact of losses in the gas transmission system. The licences will extend to all domestic supplies the current requirement on British Gas to produce energy efficiency services and advice.

    Perhaps most important, we are sweeping away the requirement that gas can only he sold as a fuel. The Bill will allow gas to be sold as part of an energy package, including a more efficient boiler as well as the gas itself. Suppliers will be able to compete in selling warm houses and not simply in selling gas, and they will have every incentive to compete by offering such added-value services as well as competing on price.

    Mr.Spearing

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman’s neck is still as rough as it was a moment ago, and I will not give way to him.
    I believe that competition will provide a powerful dynamic for energy efficiency. I know that Labour Members have always taken a cynical view about that. They believe that the only way to promote energy efficiency is through public expenditure or levies on other consumers. But they have always scoffed at what a competitive market can achieve. They have always been proved wrong in the event.

    The principal concept underlying the Bill is the division of the various components of the gas industry. In particular, the public gas supplier envisaged by the Gas Act 1986 is to become three separate types of entity.

    The first is the public gas transporter, who operates the pipelines through which gas is delivered to premises. The Bill recognises that, at the level of local distribution, that remains a monopoly function. Accordingly, British Gas’s prices for transportation services will remain closely regulated.

    The second entity is the gas supplier, who will contract with the customer for a supply of gas and will be responsible for delivering the services that the customer requires.

    The third entity is the gas shipper, who performs the specialised function of arranging with public gas transporters for the right amounts of gas to be put into pipelines—normally at the beach—and conveyed to premises. In effect, that is a wholesaling function. The Bill requires that public gas transporters are separate legal persons from suppliers or shippers. However, the Bill allows the supplier and shipper functions to be handled either by the same entity or separately so that companies can organise themselves to fit their expertise.

    A memorandum giving details of the principal terms of the licences—to which Opposition Members have drawn the attention of the House—was placed in the Library last week. The legal drafts of the licences are being prepared and will be published as soon as they are ready. We will of course listen most carefully to the views of hon. Members, the industry and others with an interest as we move towards finalising those standard conditions.

    The Bill’s detailed provisions largely consist of amendments to the Gas Act 1986 to give effect to the new structure and to provide an appropriate system of licensing. Clauses 1 and 2 adapt the duties of the Secretary of State and the director to the new regulatory framework. Clauses 3 to 8 introduce the new licensing framework for the industry, appropriate to the introduction of full competition. Clauses 3 and 4 and schedule 1 make it a criminal offence, subject to exemptions, to act as a supplier, shipper or transporter without the appropriate licence.

    Clause 5 sets out the licensing regime for public gas transporters. Clause 6 sets out the licensing regime for gas supply and gas shipping. Clause 7 provides for the scope of licence conditions and procedures for application. Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to determine and publish standard licence conditions and provides for their incorporation in licences. The Bill includes a number of other clauses and schedules, which there will be an opportunity to consider in detail at a later stage.

    This Bill brings to an end a 150-year period of monopoly in the gas industry. It provides for the change to take place carefully and with fully adequate safeguards, yet it will allow people in the pilot areas to start benefiting from competition from next April. No stronger confirmation could be seen of the popularity of our proposals than the widespread interest that has been shown by people and their elected representatives in participating in the pilot phases. The Bill sets out proposals that have been welcomed by British Gas, by independent suppliers and by the Gas Consumers Council.

    Perhaps I can take the House just a little further back in history and deal with the views that the Labour party has expressed on the issue. As we listen to what the right hon. Member for Copeland says this afternoon, we ought to know the judgment, authority and quality of view that lie behind the Labour party’s policies.

    In 1985, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who was then the Opposition spokesman, said:

    There is no evidence that the Bill will improve efficiency, provide a better service, produce cheaper gas or, least of all, create greater competition. As the House knows, there have been significant reductions in the price of industrial and commercial gas. There has been a significant increase in competition. There is certainly improved efficiency and a wider service.

    The next forecast that we were to hear came from the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). He told us that

    the 16 million British gas consumers can expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come.”—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 780-93.] The whole House knows that there has been downward pressure on prices. The forecasts are that that will be intensified as a result of the Bill. The average annual gas bill for domestic consumers fell from £392 to £315 including VAT in 1994, in real terms. That is a fall of almost £77 per average domestic consumer.

    So what happens? The Opposition forecast inaccurately at every stage. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O’Neill) said on 3 October 1994:

    The Labour party has no interest or intention in seeking to return British Gas to the public sector. That is not altogether surprising, but it should be contrasted with a statement by the right hon. Member for Salford, East. He told us in 1985:

    We shall reacquire the assets, based on the policy of the Labour party conference. The only conclusion is that Opposition Members got their judgments wrong and because their judgments were so wrong, they changed their policy. Now they know that they cannot possibly go back to the electorate with the policies that a few years ago they believed were absolutely essential. That is why the Labour party is in such turmoil on clause IV.

    If one thinks that the Labour party’s policy is some sort of muddle based on misjudgments about the gas industry, perhaps I may trespass on the House’s time a little longer.

    When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) led for the Opposition in opposing the Electricity Bill in 1988, he said:

    what is proposed today is not something radical, evolutionary and new, but something old-fashioned and failed. Yet now he is flogging around the country trying to persuade his party that the things that we did in 1988 are so central to the economic fabric of society that they cannot be changed.

    Just to illustrate the depth of knowledge that he brought to the subject, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield had to say:

    the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense. Yet I was at the Dispatch Box a year or so ago when the Labour party condemned us for the dash for gas, which produced precisely the range of power stations that the Leader of the Opposition forecast would not be produced.

    The last forecast stands in line. It is from the right hon. Gentleman in the same debate in December 1988:

    In exchange for having no choice, we have the reality of higher prices.”—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 680-84.] Yet everyone knows that the downward pressure on prices has continued throughout that time.

    I took the liberty of looking once again at the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Copeland and his right hon. and hon. Friends. This is what Opposition Members will vote for tonight, if they get the chance. It says that the Bill

    is damaging to the interests of many sections of the population, including elderly people, those with low incomes and those living in South West England, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom distant from beaching points”. That is clear. That is their opinion. I took the liberty of asking whether any representations had been made by local authorities to be the first experimental area to have the benefits of the competition that will do so much harm to the elderly, those on low incomes and those living in the south-west. After all, if this is so obvious, so important and so devastating for the people for whom hon. Members on both sides of the House have the utmost sympathy —this is going to be a good one—no authority would want to be an experimental area.

    The Tories do not come out of this story as well as I would like, if the standard is the imposition of hardship on all those hard-luck cases. Only two Tory-controlled local authorities applied to be part of the first experiment. The Liberal party did rather better. It did 100 per cent. better than the Tories in trying to impose, in the language of the Labour party, hardship on all the most pressurised classes in society. Four Liberal local authorities wanted to be part of the first experiment.

    I warned the right hon. Member for Copeland that there was trouble coming. What did we discover about the people who were going to damage the interests of many sections of the population, including elderly people and people on low incomes scattered all over the place? Who takes the prize for the number of local authorities that came to my Department and asked to help get the experiment in place? The right hon. Member for Copeland should stand up and be counted. Six Labour authorities, as opposed to four Liberal and two Tory authorities, applied to be part of the experiment. So which is the party that really cares? Which party is in the business of damaging the interests of elderly people and people on low incomes? It is the Labour party.

    I say to the right hon. Member for Copeland and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for goodness sake, if you can get away from the Chamber, go back to where clause IV is being drafted and check it against the amendment on the Order Paper today. The Labour party will have to do some pretty fast talking if all the forecasts for which it will vote tonight come right. The Labour party has campaigned most arduously.

    We might ask a question or two about the Liberals. The Liberal party will undoubtedly vote for the Labour amendment, abstain or something—anything to keep out of the Government Lobby. That will be the Liberals’ position, because they want to pretend that they are a distinctive party.

    On 13 October 1994, the hon. Member for Gordon, who was the Liberal Treasury spokesman, sent a letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry. The hon. Gentleman has moved on. The great thing about being a Liberal spokesman is that one never stays in the job for long. One can abandon the position that the party has adopted one month, hand the job to someone else and disown it the next, in any part of the country. In that letter, he said:

    I am concerned to read that the Government may be unable to find sufficient space in the Parliamentary timetable to legislate for competition in the gas industry. It is extremely important that the legislative framework for this is put in place as soon as possible”. So that there should be no doubt—even for people like myself who perhaps do not pay as much attention to the Liberals as we should—the letter continued:

    `i.e.’ the next session in Parliament. Even I could work out on 13 October 1994 when the next Session of Parliament would be. I have good news for the hon. Gentleman—join us in the Lobby tonight, because this is the legislation that he regarded as so critical just a few months ago.

    Mr. Spearing

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No, he will not.

    Mr. Caborn

    On a very important point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the security of Government files. I have just been handed a file on the Second Reading of the Gas Bill—a file that obviously should be in the Minister’s hands. All the points that he has mentioned are there—notes on intervention, regional pricing, winners and losers, small customers, cherry picking, direct debit, jobs, safety and the role of the regulator. They are all here in this file and as you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are marked, “Priority”, “Immediate”, and “Priority” again. I am sure—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

    Order. The Chair is not responsible for any sources of reference that hon. Members may have. Clearly, the speech of the President of the Board of Trade has a little way to go yet.

    Mr. Caborn

    Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. It is no good the hon. Gentleman standing there and waving papers at the Chair. With the greatest of respect, that was not a point of order for me.

    Mr. Heseltine

    It is a huge hoot that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) should be able to raise that matter today, but if he ever gets into government, he will discover that everything leaks. All that he has demonstrated is that that was a particularly proficient and professional example of the art. Had I organised it myself, I could not have done it faster, and I could not have chosen a nicer hon. Member to do it to.

    Another reason why the Opposition will try to persuade the House to vote for their amendment is that the Bill omits any regulatory provision to enable price cuts to consumers where there are unjustified salary and share options awarded to senior employees.

    Dr. John Cunningham

    Read that again.

    Mr. Heseltine

    Yes, I will. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, I shall be happy to read it again. The words are in the Opposition amendment and I thought that Opposition Members could read their amendments. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman wants an opportunity to discuss recent pay awards and option schemes in British Gas. That is a legitimate thing for him to do and I am not complaining. He did not hear a word of protest from me. I am merely putting that subject on the agenda, so that when he gets up and does so, it will come as no surprise. Indeed, it might even encourage some of my hon. Friends to hang about to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say—not that he will not have said it all before.

    Nevertheless, I want to deal with that matter seriously. It is suggested that the regulator should be able to impose pressures on gas industry prices to deal with unjustified salary and share options awarded to senior employees. The House will want to know that the turnover for British Gas is £9.698 billion—nearly £10 billion. Total board pay and share options are under £10 million, which works out at 0.09695 per cent. of turnover—less than 1,000th of total turnover. Worked out in terms of the effect on the average domestic customer, it means that if there were no directors, stock options or bonuses, the price to that customer would be reduced by 50p a year. British Gas has succeeded in bringing down prices by 20 per cent., which is £77 for the average domestic customer. So, if one got rid of all the senior directors, bonuses and options and did not replace them, one would save 50p—for a board of directors who have saved customers £77 a year.

    I have this question for the right hon. Member for Copeland. Will he not replace that remuneration? Will there be no directors? Where would he recruit them, what would he pay them and how much would that take back from the 50p that he implies would be saved? Does he really think that he could run British Gas and all those other companies with no directors and no cosy soft jobs for pensioned-off trade unionists? He had better not tell them that this side of a general election campaign.

    The Opposition are trying desperately to confuse the public about the transformation that they are trying to bring about in Labour party policy on the issue. That policy lacks any credibility because they have had to abandon—or half of them have had to abandon —everything that they have ever believed in on the issue. That is a slight exaggeration, because some Labour Members have certainly not abandoned those beliefs.

    I have before me a reference to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who is rather keen on advising people about remuneration. I understand that he is making a killing out of advising directors in the private sector about stock options and remunerative packages—[Interruption.] I am not complaining, but observing that a member of the Labour party is making a killing out of all that. Having done so, in another capacity he is teaching them to present themselves as well as possible, in a friendly and smiling fashion on television, to rationalise and justify to the British people the remuneration packages that he has told them how to get—[Interruption.]

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I hope that the Secretary of State warned the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that he intended to refer to him. There is a code in the Chamber, which Madam Speaker has re-emphasised, that if hon. Members are to be referred to, they should be done the courtesy of being forewarned.

    Mr. Heseltine

    I respect that judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall convey to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West the fact that

    I did not give him warning and that I have referred to that matter. As it has been in national newspapers and as he has set himself up as an authority on the matter, he might have come to the House today to participate in the debate. He is an endangered species—he is hunting with the hounds and with the hares. He jolly nearly got himself outlawed in the House a week ago.

    The Opposition amendment reveals that the Labour party has been forced to abandon its opposition to privatisation. It has been forced to recognise that every Government of any significance in the world are moving in the direction that this Government pioneered. Labour Members know that that is in tune with the mood of the people and that is why they have abandoned their long-held views.

    Conservative Members have long-held views on the strength of the private competitive world, which offers better services, and is the most effective on quality and prices. We stick to our views and we will stick to this legislation.