UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Barbara Castle – 1969 Statement on Ford Motor Company Strike

    Barbara Castle – 1969 Statement on Ford Motor Company Strike

    The statement made by Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in the House of Commons on 10 March 1969.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the strike at Ford Motor Company plants.

    Following an application from the unions for a pay increase and growing pressure for the provision of a guaranteed week to insulate its workers against layoffs resulting from strike action elsewhere, the company, in November last, entered into negotiations with the trade union side of the National Joint Negotiating Committee through a working party consisting of representatives of the company and the six unions covering the great majority of their employees.

    After a series of meetings and an interim report to the N.J.N.C., the company put forward on 10th February an improved “package deal” offer which the trade union representatives agreed to recommend unanimously to the full trade union side of the Ford N.J.N.C. On 11th February the trade union side accepted the offer by majority decision.

    The following are the main features of the package deal: increases in rates averaging about 8 per cent.; measures to facilitate productivity improvements; lay-off and short-time payments on condition that the employee has not engaged during the previous six months in action in breach of the procedure agreed by the National Joint Negotiating Committee; a £20 holiday bonus, provided that the same condition is fulfilled during the previous 12 months; improvements in the disputes procedure, and an accelerated joint procedure for dealing with appeals against disqualification from lay-off payment and holiday bonus; equal pay for women employees, subject to acceptance of the same conditions as for male employees.

    These terms, subject to certain reservations in respect of equal pay, were to come into operation on 1st March.

    On 18th February, the A.E.U. Executive Council rejected the deal and demanded renegotiation. A few days later, the full trade union side of the N.J.N.C. decided to request the company to suspend the package deal pending reexamination. Nevertheless, when the company and the unions met in the N.J.N.C. on 25th February, the trade union side, by majority decision, confirmed their acceptance of the deal and requested the company to implement it from 1st March.

    The company therefore asked my Department for an urgent reply to the request that it had already made for Government approval under the prices and incomes policy for implementation of the deal. This was granted on an assessment of the productivity savings flowing from the deal as a whole and subject to review after six months.

    On 25th February, however, the A.E.U. had called an official strike of their members in Ford plants, a number of which were already affected by unofficial strikes. Similar decisions followed from the T. & G.W.U., the Patternmakers and the National Union of Vehicle Builders. Although about 7,000 employees have remained at work, vehicle production in the company’s plants is virtually at a standstill, with serious loss of exports.

    On 27th February, the company obtained an interim injunction against the A.E.F. and the T.G.W.U. restraining them from taking further action in pursuance of the strike.

    On the same day, a meeting of representatives of the unions on the N.J.N.C. took place at Croydon, under the chairmanship of Lord Cooper, immediately following the T.U.C. conference of union executives. Following this meeting, an approach was made to the company requesting withdrawal of legal action, renegotiation on the basis of dropping conditional lay-off benefit and holiday bonus and consideration of alternative productivity proposals, in return for all of which, the unions in dispute with the company would instruct their members to return to work.

    The company replied by offering to withdraw legal action, provided that there was a return to work on the following Monday, and the package deal was recognised as being in operation until replaced by an agreement negotiated in accordance with the N.J.N.C. procedure. There was no response from the union side. On 6th March the interim injunction was discharged by the High Court.

    On the following day, last Friday, at the T.U.C.’s invitation, representatives of the unions on the N.J.N.C. were called together, and this was followed immediately by a joint meeting of the two sides of the N.J.N.C. As, however, no basis for a resumption of work was found at this meeting, officers of my Department held exploratory talks with the two sides on Saturday, and further talks are taking place this afternoon.

  • Barbara Castle – 1969 Statement on Vauxhall Motors Strike

    Barbara Castle – 1969 Statement on Vauxhall Motors Strike

    The statement made by Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in the House of Commons on 7 March 1969.

    Production at the Vauxhall plants at Ellesmere Port and Luton has been seriously affected by shortage of components caused by a strike of 10 platers employed at the Ellesmere Port factory. The strike, which began on 26th February, has resulted in 11,000 employees being laid off, 6,000 at the Ellesmere Port plant and 5,000 at Luton and further lay-offs are threatened.

    The men are claiming an additional payment because of the conditions in which their work is done. The company maintains that it has an understanding with the union side of the joint negotiating committee that claims of this nature will be considered only in the general review of the company’s whole pay structure for manual workers, at present under discussion in that committee, and that, therefore, it is unable to deal with this particular claim in isolation. The company has, however, expressed its willingness to consider this matter at a meeting of the joint negotiating committee on Tuesday next.

    Officials of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers, to which the strikers belong, have made several attempts to secure a return to work, but these have so far been unsuccessful. I understand that after the failure of the latest of these attempts yesterday, the company has stated that it now considers the men on strike as having terminated their employment with the company.

    I am deeply disturbed that a stoppage this nature should have resulted in such widespread stoppage of production and loss of employment. Officers of my Department have already been in touch with the union and the company and they are seeking urgent consultations with both sides to see what further steps can be taken.

  • Priti Patel – 2022 Speech in Kigali, Rwanda

    Priti Patel – 2022 Speech in Kigali, Rwanda

    The speech made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, in Kigali, Rwanda, on 14 April 2022.

    I am delighted to be here in Kigali, Rwanda alongside our friend and partner Minister Dr Vincent Biruta.

    I would like to express my personal thanks to him and his team for the constructive way in which they have worked with my team over many many months to achieve and deliver this partnership.

    The UK has a long and proud development history with Rwanda. Our shared interests have resulted in strong economic and development growth lifting millions out of poverty, but also resulted in growing manufacturing and technology sectors, which are generating jobs and sustainable growth for generations to come.

    I know at first hand that your country, Minister is a regional and international leader. You are on the global stage, very much yourself more often than not but also hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the World Telecommunication Development Conference, and the Sustainable Energy for All Forum.

    Your national leadership is the African voice on international initiatives, which really speak to and seek to find solutions to regional and international challenges.

    I am very honoured to be here, and the United Kingdom is delighted to be working ever more closely with Rwanda.

    We have many, many interests in common, and we face many of the same challenges. I want to turn to one of those challenges now.

    The global migration crisis and how we tackle illegal migration requires new world-leading solutions.

    There are an estimated 80 million people displaced in the world and the global approach to asylum and migration is broken.

    Evil people smugglers and their criminal gangs are facilitating people into Europe, resulting in loss of life and huge costs to the UK taxpayer.

    The tragic loss of life of people in the Channel and in the Mediterranean at the hands of these evil smugglers must stop.

    And today, our approach as two outward-looking countries has led to the signing of a new international partnership – which is a world first. It is a migration and economic development partnership with the country of Rwanda and UK.

    This will see some of those arriving illegally in the UK, such as those crossing the channel in dangerous small boats, relocated to Rwanda to resettle and rebuild their lives in ways in which the minister has just outlined.

    More than 28,000 migrants crossed the channel last year by small boat in very dangerous and perilous conditions

    The UK asylum system is collapsing under a combination of real humanitarian crises and evil people smugglers profiteering by exploiting the system for their own gain.

    Criminals are exploiting the hopes and fears of migrants, pushing them to make dangerous journeys to the UK with fictitious and false promises that they can settle in the UK if they make it.

    This has devastating consequences for the countless men, women, and children who have tragically lost their lives or lost loved ones on perilous journeys.

    It is also deeply unfair, because it advantages those with the means to pay people smugglers over vulnerable people who cannot.

    Global systems and conventions have failed to address this global crisis.

    The world has changed and renewed global leadership is required to find new innovative solutions to this growing problem.

    Today the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed a joint new migration and economic development partnership to put an end to this deadly trade in people smuggling.

    This is part of the United Kingdom’s New Plan for Immigration to control our borders, protect our communities, stop dangerous illegal migration, help the world’s most desperate people, and welcome international talents to the UK.

    It is the biggest overhaul of our immigration system in decades, underpinned by our Nationality and Borders Bill, which will soon become law.

    Our country, the United Kingdom, has always extended the hand of friendship to those in need.

    In recent years alone, we have proudly welcomed tens of thousands of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, and BNOs from Hong Kong.

    Rwanda has one of the strongest records of refugee resettlement and in recent years and as the minister has just said, Rwanda has resettled over 100,000 refugees.

    It has an established record of welcoming and integrating people, such as those from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi, but also including, for example, people from Libya evacuated under the EU’s Emergency Transit Mechanism, in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency and the African Union. Rwanda is also a State Party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the seven core UN Human Rights Conventions.

    Border control is fundamental to national sovereignty. Uncontrolled immigration reduces our capability and capacity to help those who most need our support. It puts intolerable pressure on public services and local communities.

    And at home, as the Prime Minister has said today, because the capacity of asylum system is not unlimited, the presence of economic migrants – which these illegal routes introduce into the asylum system – inhibits our ability to support others in genuine need of protection.

    The British people are fair and generous when it comes to helping those in need, but the persistent circumventing of our laws and immigration rules and the reality of a system that is open to gaming and criminal exploitation has eroded public support for Britain’s asylum system and those that genuinely need access to it.

    Putting evil people smugglers out of business is a moral imperative. It requires us to use every tool at our disposal – and also to find new solutions.

    That is why today’s migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda is such a major milestone.

    It is also very much in keeping with our vision for a Global Britain that harnesses the potential of new relationships and stimulates investment and jobs in partner countries.

    Working together, the United Kingdom and Rwanda will help make the immigration system fairer, ensure that people are safe and enjoy new opportunities to flourish.

    We have agreed that people who enter the UK illegally will be considered for relocation to Rwanda to have their asylum claim decided.

    And those who are resettled will be given support, including up to five years of training to help with integration, accommodation, and healthcare, so that they can resettle and thrive.

    This agreement fully complies with all international and national law, and as part of this ground-breaking agreement, the UK is making a substantial investment in the economic development of Rwanda.

    This will support programmes to improve the lives of the people in Rwanda and develop the country, economy, job prospects, and opportunities.

    In addition, the UK will provide funding and expertise to implement this agreement.

    As I have said many, many times, this is a global issue, with many countries struggling to address the challenges and the causes. And there is no single or simple solution.

    This agreement illustrates that we can no longer accept the status quo. People are dying and the global migration crisis requires new ways to find new partnerships and to find new solutions.

    It will deal a major blow to the evil people smugglers.

    We know this will not be easy, we know that we will face challenges along the way, but together with the Nationality and Borders Bill, and the New Plan for Immigration, the UK will support those fleeing oppression, persecution, and tyranny through safe and legal routes, while controlling our borders and deterring illegal entry.

    Our world-leading migration and economic development partnership is a global first and will change the way we collectively tackle illegal migration through new, innovative, and world-leading solutions.

    Thank you.

  • Barbara Castle – 1968 Statement on London Transport Fare Rises

    Barbara Castle – 1968 Statement on London Transport Fare Rises

    The statement made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 7 March 1968.

    The Board submitted their Report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and to me on Thursday last, 29th February. It is being laid before the House today.

    The National Board confirm the proposals by London Transport for fares increases, for reasons which are set out at length in the Report. They have deferred consideration of British Rail’s proposals until they report upon the wider question of passenger and freight charges outside London, which has also been referred to them. In the light of this, the Government have decided that there are no grounds for continuing to force their requests to the London Transport Board to withhold their proposed application to the Transport Tribunal, and to defer introducing the changes authorised by the Transport Tribunal in July, 1966, in concessionary fares for employed juveniles. The corresponding proposals by British Rail cannot, however, go forward at present. I have told the Chairmen of the two Boards of these decisions.

    The London Transport proposals must now go through the full statutory procedures of the Transport Tribunal, including a public inquiry.

    The National Board have also made recommendations relating to the operation, costs and staff of the London Transport Board, to the future organisation of London Transport in relation to the Greater London Council, and to studies by my Department of social costs. I am already having wide-ranging discussions with London Transport and the Greater London Council on various matters. They include in particular those about the proposed transfer to the G.L.C. of responsibility for London Transport, to which I referred in the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on 15th December last. In further discussions on these matters, I will take fully into account the National Board’s recommendations.—[Vol. 756, c. 250.]

  • Barbara Castle – 1968 Statement on New Road Signs

    Barbara Castle – 1968 Statement on New Road Signs

    The statement made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 7 February 1968.

    I am aware of a recent survey which shews that many road users do not yet recognise the new road signs, though the situation is on the whole improving gradually.

    A large-scale publicity campaign to familiarise the public with the new road signs and their meaning has been in progress for the past three years and will continue. Every medium of publicity available has been used. More than nine million copies of a special booklet in colour have been issued, half of them sold through booksellers and newsagents, the remainder issued free to learner-drivers, trainee cyclists and foreign visitors. Every L-driver gets a free copy with his first provisional licence. This free issue is continuing at the rate of about 1¾ millions a year. The new traffic signs will be illustrated in the revised Highway Code now in preparation. So far, more than six million free leaflets illustrating a selection of the signs have been issued through the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. About 135,000 wall-charts have been issued to schools, garages, libraries etc. for continuous display, and some 2½million other visual aids for all ages. A successful mobile exhibition featuring the signs has been on tour since 1964. It has so far visited 130 towns and been seen by about 600,000 people. The tour continues this year. In addition to generous editorial space given by Press, television and radio, 27 specially produced short films on the subject have been given more than 1,200 showings on B.B.C. and I.T.V., and seven more films are still to come.

    I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member’s suggestion but apart from the fact that it would be surprisingly expensive to carry out I do not believe that it would add much to the campaigns I have already put in hand and which are continuing. I believe that the Ministry’s campaigns do give road users the means to educate themselves in the meaning of the new signs. It is for road users themselves to make the necessary effort to learn.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Speech on Tackling Illegal Migration

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Speech on Tackling Illegal Migration

    The speech made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 14 April 2022.

    For centuries, our United Kingdom has had a proud history of welcoming people from overseas, including many fleeing persecution.

    My own great-grandfather came from Turkey in fear of his life, because our country offered sanctuary for his outspoken journalism.

    And when you look back over the centuries as people have come seeking refuge or simply in search of somewhere to build a better life, you see this is the very stuff our history is made of.

    From the French Huguenots, to the Jewish refugees from Tsarist Russia, to the docking of the Empire Windrush, to the South Asians fleeing East Africa, to the many, many others who have come from different countries at different times for different reasons, all have wanted to be here because our United Kingdom is a beacon of openness and generosity, and all in turn have contributed magnificently to the amazing story of the UK.

    Today that proud history of safe and legal migration is ultimately responsible for many of those working in our hospitals and on the front line of our response to the pandemic, for more than 60 per cent of the England football team at the final of Euro 2020, for many of our country’s leading figures in the worlds of business, art and culture, and, I’m pleased to say, for ever growing numbers of people serving in public life, including colleagues of mine like Nadhim Zahawi who escaped with his family from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Dominic Raab, whose Jewish father came to Britain from Czechoslovakia to escape Nazi Germany, and Priti Patel, whose family fled persecution in Uganda.

    So I’m proud that this government has continued the great British tradition of providing sanctuary to those in need, in fact, doing more to resettle vulnerable people in the UK – through safe and legal routes – than any other government in recent history.

    Since 2015 we have offered a place to over 185,000 men, women and children seeking refuge, more than the entire population of Sunderland and more than any other similar resettlement schemes in Europe.

    This includes almost 100,000 British Nationals Overseas threatened by draconian security laws in Hong Kong, 20,000 through our Syrian scheme, 13,000 from Afghanistan and to whom we owe debts of honour, and around 50,000 Ukrainians.

    And we are not only supporting British nationals and those settled in the UK to bring potentially hundreds of thousands of their extended family from Ukraine, we are also welcoming unlimited numbers of refugees from that conflict, as the British people open their homes, in one of the biggest movements of refugees to this country that we have ever known.

    And as we work with local authorities and the devolved administrations to welcome those coming from Ukraine into our communities, we will also find accommodation across our whole United Kingdom for all those who have come here previously but who are currently in hotels, because it makes absolutely no sense for the taxpayer to foot those bills, running to almost £5 million a day, with the sum total of those we accommodate being concentrated in just a third of local authorities.

    It is controlled immigration, through safe and legal routes, which enables us to make generous offers of sanctuary while managing the inevitable pressures on our public services such that we can give all those who come here the support they need to rebuild their lives, to integrate and to thrive.

    But the quid pro quo for this generosity, is that we cannot sustain a parallel illegal system.

    Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.

    We can’t ask the British taxpayer to write a blank cheque to cover the costs of anyone who might want to come and live here.

    Uncontrolled immigration creates unmanageable demands on our NHS and our welfare state, it overstretches our local schools, our housing and public transport, and creates unsustainable pressure to build on precious green spaces.

    Nor is it fair on those who are seeking to come here legally, if others can just bypass the system.

    It’s a striking fact that around seven out of ten of those arriving in small boats last year were men under 40, paying people smugglers to queue jump and taking up our capacity to help genuine women and child refugees.

    This is particularly perverse as those attempting crossings, are not directly fleeing imminent peril as is the intended purpose of our asylum system.

    They have passed through manifestly safe countries, including many in Europe, where they could – and should – have claimed asylum.

    It is this rank unfairness of a system that can be exploited by gangs, which risks eroding public support for the whole concept of asylum.

    The British people voted several times to control our borders, not to close them, but to control them.

    So just as Brexit allowed us to take back control of legal immigration by replacing free movement with our points-based system, we are also taking back control of illegal immigration, with a long-term plan for asylum in this country.

    It is a plan that will ensure the UK has a world-leading asylum offer, providing generous protection to those directly fleeing the worst of humanity, by settling thousands of people every year through safe and legal routes.

    And I emphasise this. So whether you are fleeing Putin or Assad, our aim is that you should not need to turn to the people smugglers or any other kind of illegal option.

    But to deliver it, we must first ensure that the only route to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal one, and that those who try to jump the queue, or abuse our system, will find no automatic path to settlement in our country, but rather be swiftly and humanely removed to a safe third country or their country of origin.

    And the most tragic of all forms of illegal migration, which we must end with this approach, is the barbaric trade in human misery conducted by the people smugglers in the Channel.

    Before Christmas 27 people drowned, and in the weeks ahead there could be many more losing their lives at sea, and whose bodies may never be recovered.

    Around 600 came across the Channel yesterday. In just a few weeks this could again reach a thousand a day.

    I accept that these people – whether 600 or one thousand – are in search of a better life; the opportunities that the United Kingdom provides and the hope of a fresh start.

    But it is these hopes – those dreams – that have been exploited.

    These vile people smugglers are abusing the vulnerable and turning the Channel into a watery graveyard, with men, women and children, drowning in unseaworthy boats, and suffocating in refrigerated lorries.

    And even if they do make it here, we know only too well some of the horrendous stories of exploitation over the years, from the nail bars of East London to the cockle beds of Morecambe Bay, as illegal migration makes people more vulnerable to the brutal abuse of ruthless gangs.

    So we must halt this appalling trade and defeat the people smugglers.

    That is why we are passing the Nationality and Borders Bill, which allows us for the first time to distinguish between people coming here legally and illegally, and for this distinction to affect how your asylum claim progresses and your status in the UK if that claim is successful.

    It will enable us to issue visa penalties against those countries that refuse to accept returns of foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers.

    It will clean up the abuse of our legal system, introducing a one-stop shop that will end the cycle of last minute and vexatious claims and appeals that so often thwart or delay removals.

    And it will end the absurd practice of asylum-seeking adults claiming to be children to strengthen their claims and access better services.

    Crucially it will also allow us to prosecute those who arrive illegally, with life sentences for anyone piloting the boats. And to identify, intercept and investigate these boats, from today the Royal Navy will take over operational command from Border Force in the Channel, taking primacy for our operational response at sea, in line with many of our international partners, with the aim that no boat makes it to the UK undetected.

    This will be supported with £50 million of new funding for new boats, aerial surveillance and military personnel in addition to the existing taskforce of patrol vessels, Wildcat helicopters, search and rescue aircraft, drones and remotely piloted aircraft.

    This will send a clear message to those piloting the boats: if you risk other people’s lives in the Channel, you risk spending your own life in prison.

    People who do make it to the UK will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense, rather they will be housed in accommodation centres like those in Greece, with the first of these open shortly.

    At the same time, we are expanding our immigration detention facilities, to assist with the removal of those with no right to remain in the UK.

    We are investing over half a billion pounds in these efforts.

    And this is on top of overhauling our arrivals infrastructure here in Kent, with new processing facilities now operational at Western Jet Foil and Manston.

    But we need to go still further in breaking the business model of these gangs.

    So from today, our new Migration and Economic Development Partnership will mean that anyone entering the UK illegally – as well as those who have arrived illegally since January 1st – may now be relocated to Rwanda.

    This innovative approach – driven our shared humanitarian impulse and made possible by Brexit freedoms – will provide safe and legal routes for asylum, while disrupting the business model of the gangs, because it means that economic migrants taking advantage of the asylum system will not get to stay in the UK, while those in genuine need will be properly protected, including with access to legal services on arrival in Rwanda, and given the opportunity to build a new life in that dynamic country, supported by the funding we are providing.

    The deal we have done is uncapped and Rwanda will have the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people in the years ahead.

    And let’s be clear, Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants.

    Later this year it will welcome leaders from across the Commonwealth, and before the pandemic, in 2018, the IMF said Rwanda was the world’s fourth fastest growing economy.

    We are confident that our new Migration Partnership is fully compliant with our international legal obligations, but nevertheless we expect this will be challenged in the courts, and if this country is seen as a soft touch for illegal migration by some of our partners, it is precisely because we have such a formidable army of politically motivated lawyers who for years who have made it their business to thwart removals and frustrate the Government.

    So I know that this system will not take effect overnight, but I promise that we will do whatever it takes to deliver this new approach, initially within the limits of the existing legal and constitutional frameworks, but also prepared to explore any and all further legal reforms which may be necessary.

    Because this problem has bedevilled our country for too long and caused far too much human suffering and tragedy, and this is the government that refuses to duck the difficult decisions, this is the government that makes the big calls, and I profoundly believe there is simply no other option.

    And I say to those who would criticise our plan today, we have a plan; what is your alternative?

    I know there are some who believe we should just turn these boats back at sea.

    But after much study and consultation – including with Border Force, the police, national crime agency, military and maritime experts, to whom I pay tribute for all the incredible work that they do dealing with this problem as things stand – it’s clear that there are extremely limited circumstances when you can safely do this in the English Channel.

    And it doesn’t help that this approach, I don’t think, would be supported by our French partners, and relying solely on this course of action is simply not practical in my view.

    I know there are others who would say that we should just negotiate a deal with France and the EU.

    And we have made repeated and generous offers to our French friends and we will continue to press them and the EU for the comprehensive returns agreement that would solve this problem.

    We remain grateful to the gendarmes on the beach, for the joint intelligence work and the co-operation that has stopped thousands of boats.

    We would like to deepen that work and we continue to believe that a deal with France and the EU is in the national interest of all our countries.

    But we must have our own framework for full sovereignty over our borders and we must find a way to stop these boats now, not lose thousands more lives while waiting for a deal that just doesn’t exist.

    And I know there will be a vocal minority who will think these measures are draconian and lacking in compassion. I simply don’t agree.

    There is no humanity or compassion in allowing desperate and innocent people to have their dreams of a better life exploited by ruthless gangs, as they are taken to their deaths in unseaworthy boats.

    And there is no humanity or compassion in endlessly condemning the people smugglers, but then time and again ducking the big calls needed to break the business model of the gangs and stop these boats coming.

    And there is no humanity or compassion in calling for unlimited safe and legal routes, offering the false hope of asylum in the UK to anyone who wants it, because that is just unsustainable.

    There are currently 80 million displaced people in the world, many in failed States where governments can’t meet their aspirations.

    In an era of mobile connectivity they are a call or a text away from potentially being swept up in the tide of people smuggling.

    The answer cannot be for the UK to become the haven for all of them.

    That is a call for open borders by the back door, a political argument masquerading as a humanitarian policy.

    Those in favour of this approach should be honest about it and argue for it openly.

    We reject it, as the British people have consistently rejected it at the ballot box – in favour of controlled immigration.

    We simply cannot have a policy of saying anyone who wants to live here can do so.

    We’ve got to be able to control who comes into this country and the terms on which they remain.

    And we must do this in the spirit of our history of providing refuge.

    And in that way we can more than play our part in offering sanctuary to thousands fleeing persecution.

    But then of course other countries must play their part too.

    And that is what I think is most exciting about the partnership we have agreed with Rwanda today because we believe it will become a new international standard in addressing the challenges of global migration and people smuggling.

    So I am grateful for Rwanda’s leadership and partnership and we stand ready to work with other nations on similar agreements, as well as wider reforms to the international asylum framework.

    As I say, we will continue to work with our French friends to tackle the gangs, we will continue to lead co-operation with crime and intelligence partners across Europe, we will continue to seek a returns agreement with the EU or with France.

    But in the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, we need this new approach.

    The people smugglers are undermining confidence in our borders.

    They are betraying all those who do the right thing, who try to come here legally – through forms of migration or the safe and legal routes provided for refuge.

    They are undermining the natural compassion and goodwill that people have towards refugees in this country.

    And they are endangering human life day after day.

    And though the way ahead will be hard, and though we can expect many challenges and many obstacles to be thrown up against this plan, I believe this plan is the right way forward, because the people smugglers must be stopped in order to save countless lives; and because tackling illegal migration is precisely the way to sustain a safe, legal and generous offer of sanctuary to those in need, that is in the very best traditions of this country and the values we stand for in the world.

  • Amanda Milling – 2022 Statement on the 34th Anniversary of the Anfal campaign

    Amanda Milling – 2022 Statement on the 34th Anniversary of the Anfal campaign

    The statement made by Amanda Milling, the Minister for Asia and the Middle East, on 14 April 2022.

    Today marks the 34th Anniversary of the Anfal campaign – Saddam Hussein’s brutal campaign against the Kurdish people in Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds were slaughtered and thousands more injured, maimed and expelled from their homes. The use of chemical weapons in such a coordinated and planned manner by a state against its own people is horrific beyond comprehension.

    My thoughts are with those who died, those who are mourning the loss of loved ones, and those that continue to suffer from the tragic events of 1988. We mark this occasion to honour the memories of those who died and to ensure we never forget Saddam Hussein’s monstrous crimes against the Kurdish people.

    The UK remains committed in its support for the peace and prosperity of the people of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak Being Fined for Breaking Rules

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak Being Fined for Breaking Rules

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 12 April 2022.

    Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have broken the law and repeatedly lied to the British public.

    They must both resign.

    The Conservatives are totally unfit to govern. Britain deserves better.

  • John Hynd – 1967 Speech on the Transport Bill

    John Hynd – 1967 Speech on the Transport Bill

    The speech made by John Hynd, the then Labour MP for Sheffield Attercliffe, in the House of Commons on 20 December 1967.

    Unlike the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), I rise to give my warmest support to the Bill. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) suggested that the Bill was the result of the thinking of an extreme Left-wing Socialist. He will probably be surprised to find the Bill receiving unanimous support on this side of the House from all sections of the Labour Party.

    I support the Bill because it accepts many of the principles which many of us have been advocating for many years. It accepts the principle that we can no longer go on with our overcrowded roads, with their daily death toll, while our railways are under-used. It accepts the principle of reducing the unfair charges which the railways have had to pay for far too long. It does this by proposing to write off the debts which have been accrued by the railways, largely because of these unfair charges. It also accepts the principle of assessing the true costs of transport under the different methods which are available to us.

    I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester that it is a pity that we have been given only one day to debate a Bill of this size. This Measure contains at least four other Bills. I do not know why he should complain about this, because for this problem to be tackled comprehensively, if this Measure had not been introduced, four other Bills would have had to be brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining about my right hon. Friend’s productivity in bringing these four Measures together in one Bill so that everyone can balance one aspect of the problem with another when these issues are discussed in Committee.

    Why is my right hon. Friend being so modest about road haulage charges vis-à-vis those in the great centres of private enterprise which are so often lauded by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for example, West Germany? Many of us would have liked to have seen a much more realistic approach, perhaps on the German lines, but no doubt this will follow the discussions on the true costs.

    The hon. Gentleman repeated the usual charge that no such Bill as this should be introduced when the economy is in such a parlous state. It is just when the economy is in a parlous state that it is necessary to get on with reorganising the very basis of our economy, and in particular reorganising this great national service on which our economy and industry depends.

    The hon. Gentleman also repeated, in slightly different terms, the charge made from the Front Bench opposite during our last debate on transport, that the Bill merely represented further nationalisation, and proposed substituting for a highly competitive industry a monolithic State enterprise….”.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 750.] This is being said by hon. Gentlemen who represent the party which was responsible for the establishment of public ownership of London transport to deal with the chaos which existed then. After the 1951 General Election, one of their first acts was the nationalisation of MacBrayne Steamers in Scotland, part of the transport industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were also responsible for keeping the greater part of British Road Services nationalised, after their fruitless attempts to destroy it, and the reason for this was that our road haulage services had proved to be more highly efficient and effective than private enterprise had been, and even their own supporters demanded that they put an end to denationalisation.

    The interesting thing to note about the phrase “substituting for a highly competitive industry a monolithic State enterprise” is that when the Conservative Party calls for sacrifices from the common people of this country, for one purpose or another, hon. Gentlemen opposite refer to us as a nation, but when they are opposing Labour or Socialist Measures they refer to us as a state. This is supposed to be an epithet, but it refers to the same thing.

    The hon. Gentleman talked about a highly competitive industry. It is interesting to note that he did not say a “highly successful competitive industry”, a phrase which one usually hears from the other side about private enterprise. The reason for this is that it has not been a highly successful competitive enterprise in any sector of the national transport scheme.

    It may be that the hon. Gentleman is too conscious, of the fact that the present situation is a direct result of too much interference and hesitation by Tory Governments during the 13 years from 1951 to 1964. The Tory Government were never tired of praising the efficiency and enterprise of the British Transport Commission, but the hon. Gentleman is aware that the British Transport Commission, and the railways themselves, were, for the first time, earning a profit in 1951–52, when the Conservative Government took over and started interfering with them? This is where and when the story of the growing deficits began, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this only too well.

    In 1958, hon. Gentlemen opposite were claiming that but for the temporary economic recession at that time the B.T.C. would have been “right on target”. Three years later, in November, 1961, they were telling us that despite the growing deficit in the railways’ accounts everything was going to be all right. They chided those of us who had been talking of transport as a social service with the fact that if such wild ideas were put into practice we might have vast deficits amounting to as much as £100 million a year. The Minister then said, “We believe we have got the balance right”. How did they get the balance right? The right balance, according to what was said in introducing the 1962 Bill, was a loss not of £100 million but £150 million, with an estimated £160 million for the following year, followed by a loss of £134 million in 1963 and £121 million in 1964—and now we understand that we are faced this year with a loss of £153 million.

    The story of deficits in the railway industry began under a Conservative Government, and these deficits were maintained under Conservative Governments. We are therefore delighted that we are now reaching the point where we can say goodbye to this sorry story, which was described by a Tory Minister as “the right balance”. Incidentally, in 1961, after Dr. Beeching’s appointment, we were promised enormous savings to balance these deficits. During the six years since that time the savings arising from these wholesale railway closures have amounted to only £17 million.

    Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)

    The hon. Member is expressing delight that the railways will be relieved of this deficit. Does not he appreciate that the deficit is being wiped out purely by a currency device?

    Mr. Hynd

    It is an accounting arrangement, but when a continual deficit of about £150 million, year by year, is loaded on to the railways—a deficit which will never be repaid, anyhow—it cannot make any difference if the deficit is written off and the railways are given a chance to begin to earn a reasonable profit on their activities.

    We have had ample opportunity to hear what many hon. Members opposite have been saying about the closures under the Beeching regime, and we hope that they will take this opportunity of following us into the Lobby this evening.

    The interesting thing is that neither in the last debate nor in this have we heard a word about any alternatives from hon. Members opposite, although they have opposed everything the Government propose. Is it that they are satisfied that the present situation should be allowed to rip? Are they satisfied that we should go on with these great deficits—£150 million a year—adding again to the existing confusion on the roads? Do not they want to do anything about this confusion on the roads, which costs so much in terms of the daily toll of lives, to say nothing about the estimated £1,000 million cost to the nation arising from delays and accidents? What is their policy? So far as we can judge from what they have said during the debate they are happy to continue with the impossible situation that they created during their 13 years of office.

    I speak for many thousands of railway-men and others outside the industry in giving a warm welcome to the Minister for her courage and her practical new approach, which seeks to bring an end to the confusion and disasters of the Marples regime and restore the policy of integration of our transport services which, right from the 1920 Commission, has been the policy advocated by every independent body that has inquired into transport problems.

    A Bill of this size cannot adequately be covered in the time available to a back bench speaker, involving as it does a complete reorganisation of this immense and complex industry, and containing so many proposals and involving so many facets of the industry’s activities.

    I confine myself to asking the Minister one or two questions about the details of the Bill. First, and probably most important, when may we expect to receive the results of the investigation into the true costs of road and rail transport, taking into account the £179 million annually loaded on to the railways in respect of tracks and signalling, for which there is no comparable burden on road transport?

    Secondly, why should not all the pending and further railway closures be suspended until such time as this assessment has been made and the true comparative costs established? Until, for that matter, the results of the review of the Regional Economic Councils will be made known? It may prove, as it has in the past, that certain lines should not be closed. For example, under the Beeching Plan the railway line to Fort William was to be closed down, although another Minister in the same Tory Government was arranging for the building of a great new factory at Fort William. In the end, they had to cancel the idea of cutting out the railway line.

    This could happen again. As a result of the investigation into the true costs of road and rail transport it could be that many of the lines and services which are now proposed to be closed down will turn out to be more economical than any available alternative form of transport.

    Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the set-up, and especially with the freight services organisation? Would it not have been a much more practical proposition to restore the old British Transport Commission which, during its lifetime, proved so effective as the blanket organisation for the sectors of transport which it then covered? With all the separate organisations which now exist, or which will exist—the British Railways Board, the National Freight Corporation and Passenger Transport Authorities, to, say nothing of British Road Services, the port authority and, even, now the air services—there are bound to be clashes of interest, and decisions will have to be taken, many of them quickly.

    I do not see how decisions can be taken effectively and speedily by the Minister or by an advisory council. Many situations are bound to arise in which urgent decisions are needed at top level which cannot be dealt with promptly and adequately by a Government Department, and which ought to be dealt with by an overall body. I would have preferred to see the restoration of the British Transport Commission.

    My next point concerns the separation of the National Freight Corporation from the railways. Sufficient has been said about this to make it unnecessary for me to go into details, but nobody has yet made the point that the Bill provides that the National Freight Corporation will cater for traffic originating by road and the railways for traffic originating by rail. Is the Minister satisfied that such a distinction can always be clearly drawn? Those with practical experience of transport know that it is not always easy to say where the traffic substantially originated. If a question of this kind arises, who will decide? If it is to be the Freight Integration Council it will not be adequate. It will not work speedily enough. I ask my right hon. Friend to look closely at this question.

    I agree with what has repeatedly been said that the separation of the N.F.C. from the railways is taking from them one of the services upon which everyone had assumed they would largely depend for their financial viability. In the last year traffic increased by about 400 per cent., representing £2½ million. We understand that it will treble next year, if things continue as they are going. This must be a serious blow to railway finances. I do not understand the object of separating it from the railways, which are quite capable of managing the freight services.

    Finally, there is the question of safeguarding the interests of both the railway employees and the public. It is true that the Bill proposes a certain extension of opportunities for appeals to the T.U.C.C.s, but most people who have had anything to do with those organisations are worried not so much about the opportunities for appeal but about their lack of powers and nothing in the Bill extends those powers to enable the councils to make more effective recommendations and take account of all the factors involved in considering whether a service should be maintained.

    I know that my right hon. Friend fully realises the vital importance in this great new experiment of carrying the employees with her and bringing confidence into the ranks of the workers in the railways and elsewhere, but there is no clearly stated provision in the Bill about the rights of employees to full consultation up to the top level. What forms of consultation will be created—so far as I understand the Bill from a rapid reading, and no one could have done more in the time that we have had—are apparently to be left entirely to the Minister to decide later. She has not said on what considerations she will base decisions. This is highly important.

    The unions are greatly concerned. They are already concerned about who will be catering for whom in these new centres where roads and railways will be mixed up and there will be freight liner employees, local passenger services and area passenger services employees, railwaymen, local authority employees and others. The delineation of some of these fields may be extremely difficult. It would reassure the workers affected by the Bill if the Minister made an early statement about what form consultations will take and about how the problem of who employs whom is to be resolved.

    As so many hon. Members wish to speak and time is so short, I will confine myself to these questions at this stage, although I hope to have an opportunity of asking a number more later on. I hope that the Minister will consider that my questions are constructive and sufficiently important to justify an answer, since they urgently concern many thousands of railwaymen as well as others besides myself.

    I repeat what I said at the beginning, that I give the Bill and its general purposes and principles the warmest possible support. I hope that it will be given overwhelming support in the Lobbies. I can assure the Minister that, given certain assurances, it will have the full support of the workers in the railway industry.

  • David Webster – 1967 Speech on the Transport Bill

    David Webster – 1967 Speech on the Transport Bill

    The speech made by David Webster, the then Conservative MP for Weston-super-Mare, in the House of Commons on 20 December 1967.

    I always follow what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) says with great interest. He talked about the 1921 speech of Lord Geddes, about the railway deficit and the 1923 regrouping. I remember that during the passage of the 1962 Act he tried, with great robustness, to resist the rearrangement of British Railways. I hope that, in view of what he has said today, he will, at the same length and with the same robustness, resist the changes now proposed for British Railways. I look forward to hearing from him at great length in Committee.

    The point which the Minister left out of her speech was that the present railway deficit is less than the deficit in 1964. In 1964, the deficit was £120 million. Today, it is £150 million. But, in fact, it is 1 per cent. less because the cost of living has increased by 10 per cent. and the £ has been devalued by 16 per cent. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady missed that out of her speech. Perhaps she will make that point later.

    The Minister’s speech today and the Government speech yesterday on South Africa prove the complete incompatibility between pure Socialism and a prosperous country and responsible government. The Prime Minister’s secret is that for the last three years he has managed to keep this from the public view, but now he is no longer able to do so. The crude cost to the nation of what the Minister proposes is an increase of £60 million on the rate burden without any right of appeal. Lest it should be thought that the taxpayer will benefit from the Bill, it should be pointed out that that will not happen.

    Mrs. Castle

    I am interested in the hon. Member’s statement that there will be an increase in the rates of £60 million. Would he break that figure down so that I might understand it? It does not relate to anything in my Bill.

    Mr. Webster

    The right hon. Lady knows that the cost of setting up passenger services in urban areas is £60 million.

    Mrs. Castle

    We should get this matter clear. The Bill makes clear that the provision concerning the passenger transport authorities for suburban railway finances in their area is specifically confined to the conurbations where the losses are, not £60 million, but £8 to £10 million. The figure of £60 million applies to stopping services all over the country, and they are not involved.

    Mr. Webster

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I am always glad to give way to her, although she was not glad to give way during her speech. Clause 9 gives her power to set up a passenger transport authority in any part of the country. Therefore, what she says is absolute eyewash and is almost on the level of the parody which I put to her just now about how the railway deficit was less than it was in 1964.
    There will not be a reduction in taxation. The taxpayer will have to pay £35 million to take over British Electric Traction. The taxpayer has already suffered an increase in the railway deficit of £20 million. There is an estimate of £40 million in the Bill in vehicle taxation alone. Is this justice for an industry which has had its excise duty doubled, has suffered three increases in fuel tax and has lost its investment allowances? If that is the right hon. Lady’s idea of justice—I will not finish that sentence.

    The name of the Home Secretary, not that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is on the Bill. The fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should allow this Bill to be presented straight after devaluation, after the Prime Minister has forced a crisis of confidence and the £ is tottering again, despite the 16 per cent. devaluation, shows the inability of the Government to put right the affairs of the country. I shall probably be accused of being disloyal by pointing out the defects of the Government in trying to put the country right.

    The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) made about the chairmanship of British Railways being hawked around, it is rumoured, seven people, the Parliamentary Secretary’s visit to Canada to ask a prominent railwayman there to become Chairman of British Railways and things of this sort are nothing compared with the Minister’s failure to achieve an adequate salary structure for the Chairman and top management. If the Government want to obtain people who can put matters right, they will have to pay them properly and ensure that there are prospects for people further down the scale to be adequately remunerated for a very hard and thankless job. One sees distinguished and devoted servants like Lord Beeching, Lord Hinton, Mr. Shirley and Mr. Fiennes leaving the railways distressed and depressed.

    This is the industry which has now also lost the freightliner train, which was to be its white hope, to the National Freight Corporation. It is simply a new bureaucracy with yet another bureaucracy —the Freight Integration Council—set up to try to make sure that there will not be friction between the N.F.C. and British Railways. I cannot believe that there will not be friction between them and so it may be, for once, that this new Council will have purpose in trying to prevent that type of friction. It is known that communication in the top ranks of railway management is not very good. To set in a new authority will make it much more difficult at this time.

    The argument that licensing will relieve congestion is simply baloney. It will mean that a person is prevented from having a vehicle of more than 16 tons. Therefore, instead of using proper commercial judgment and getting a 30-tonner, he will keep his vehicle size at 16 tons or less, thus causing more than twice as many vehicles to be on the roads, particularly in the city centres, when using the railway depots. The fact that what is called a special authorisation has to be given to operate a vehicle of more than 16 tons shows that the mentality of the Minister is that this is a privilege which is given to this type of haulier.

    The railways will have the right to object and are given 14 days in which to do so. In planning matters, a person who applies for permission lodges his application. Nobody is advised; it is kept secret. In this case, however, the exact reverse will apply and those who might wish to object will be gratuitously informed at public expense. They then have to prove that on either one, two or three of the grounds of speed, reliability and cost, their service is almost as good as that of the person who is applying to give it, regardless of the choice of the customer.

    If those who succeed in having an application for a special authorisation overruled then fall down and fail to carry out their undertaking—as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told me today—no damages or compensation will be given to the person who has falsely been deprived of his licence. It should be almost a criminal matter with damages involved, but there will be none.

    There is, of course, a right of appeal, but nobody can afford to keep vehicles when they become obsolescent and there is no use for them. Would somebody who was not allowed to use them wait and go broke in the hope that one day he might succeed in an appeal? There is also the possibility of appeal by the railways should circumstances change, when they can apply for a revocation order, with the result that a haulier who has invested in expensive vehicles could lose his fleet in the twinkling of an eye.

    What about one of our best exporting companies, the Leyland Motor Co., well known for its commercial vehicle exports? One of the brightest things in British industry has been the functions of this company and its commercial vehicle exports. How will it manage to export if it does not have a safe domestic market? At a time when industrial management is being hectored and lectured by Ministers of the Crown, from the Prime Minister downwards, to work harder and to do better but is having its freedom of decision removed, it is small wonder that our application to join the Common Market has been turned down, because the Government’s proposals would be completely contradictory to the Treaty of Rome. The Minister knows that an appeal is already being made against the German labour plan, to which she referred with great enthusiasm, to the Council of the European Economic Community on the ground that it is contrary to the Treaty of Rome.

    What will happen to our people when we have the annual pre-Christmas railway strike and the annual pre-Christmas freeze-up of points? Who will deliver the perishable and essential goods that are needed to keep people alive?

    Mr. Peter Mahon

    The hon. Member will, of course, agree that the Leyland Motor Co. is not altogether condemnatory with regard to the Bill. He has not conceded this.

    Mr. Webster

    I wonder whether the hon. Member met any of his constituents who came yesterday to see Members of Parliament. I met a number of mine and some of my neighbours’ constituents. I met a lot of people from Wales who had been waiting for about four hours. They said that no Member of Parliament had come out to see them and they were furious. They said that the effect of the Bill upon a development area would be exceedingly hard. They said that the penalty on heavy indivisible loads, on which there would be a tax of £15 a mile, would hit the development areas exceedingly harshly. I was glad that as a result of the pressure which we have applied, both at Question Time and in this debate, the Minister will relent. I hope that she will relent thoroughly and make matters a good deal easier.

    I hope that the Minister will also relent regarding Schedule 11, which specifies a charge of £50 for a 3-ton vehicle and £190 for an 8-ton vehicle, because the development areas will be very hard hit by this. Many of the heavy loads are plant which is required by bodies such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, another nationalised industry.

    I sympathise with the Chairman of British Electric Traction concerning the take-over of his company. He was treated to one of the most brutal forms of blackmail by threat and he was then given a tempting offer which, in the interests of his shareholders—who include many pension trusts with workmen’s pensions involved; he had to consider this—he had to accept. This method of picking off companies like that, taking the biggest operator and then taking, as, I am sure, we will be hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), the best routes of the other companies, is designed by the Minister to ensure the withering-away of private interest which has served the country well.

    It is illusory to imagine that passenger transport authorities, for which Clause 9 provides, will be set up only in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle, because the Clause states clearly “any area”. One-seventh of every authority is to be what are called “independent members” nominated by the Minister. With the different and varying authorities, there is bound to be difference of opinion and the Minister’s nominees will always hold the balance, particularly if they have the way in towards the purse strings.

    Clause 10(l,vi) deals with the paying of the railway deficit, which I consider to be nearly £60 million in these areas. If the Minister does not agree with my figures, will she please tell me what they are for the four areas concerned and in the urban areas?

    Mrs. Castle

    I have just said: £8 million to £10 million in the four conurbations.

    Mr. Webster

    I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would publish the figures and give the methods by which they are calculated.
    What incentive to efficiency will the Minister, as arbitrator, have between a passenger transport authority and a railway company where the railway company is simply the agent for running an unremunerative service and the P.T.A. pays the bill and precepts the local authority? What defence or compensation will there be to the ratepayer whose assets are being stolen from him under a formula the details of which were given to four hon. Members on this side of the House from Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Newcastle? It seems that nobody on the benches opposite is interested in this point. I hope that a number of hon. Members opposite will serve on the Standing Committee and take an acute interest in it. I gather that the formula is almost nothing.

    Why do he have this P.T.A. business before local government reform? If it is right to do it after local government reform for the lesser areas, why do it for the most important cities before local government reform? Why do we have to give power to the Executive under Clause 15(6) when it states—this is one of the most outstanding Clauses I have ever seen: Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act, nothing done by the Executive for a designated area shall be held to be unlawful on the ground that the approval of the Authority for that area to the doing of that thing was required by or under this Part of this Act and that it was done without obtaining that approval. I know of no blanker cheque in the history of mankind. Why are we giving this power to the Executive? I should like the Minister of State to tell us this when, in this intellectual dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), he winds up the debate. I shall be grateful if he can tell us the purpose of this subsection.

    We come, then, not only to Clause 10, which gives power to sell petrol and spares, but to Clause 45, which has been dealt with so adequately by my hon. Friend, which provides for the extension of public ownership enterprise, if that is what it is called. What is the purpose of these Clauses? What benefit will they give to anybody in this country?

    I wonder why the Bill has been introduced. Is it that the Minister of Transport has said to the Prime Minister, “Either I have this Bill, regardless of the state of the economy or I go”? If not, why does not the right hon. Lady go. Surely we should all have the state of the economy as our prime interest, and not simply want to extend public ownership, despite the Letter of Intent. This is in complete contradiction of the Letter of Intent, and yet the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to allow this Minister to try to gain control of the means of distribution of everything in this country. This will put at least 10 per cent. on all our export costs. It will take the cutting edge off the British economy. Why does the Prime Minister keep the right hon. Lady there, and tolerate her in this appointment? Is it that he is frightened that if she were to go to the back benches the Left-wing would really have a champion? My right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition said yesterday that the Prime Minister was first class at looking after No. 1, but he is allowing this Bill to go through, and it will be a first-class disaster to this country.