Mr Jeffrey Thomas: I ask for the indulgence of the House as I make my maiden speech. I hope that the House will forgive me if, by chance, I make any remarks which could be construed as controversial and that it will remember that we are dealing with very controversial matters. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Vaughan) on the fluency and sincerity of his maiden speech, although he will understand...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the result of Clause 28 is to make confusion confounded? I have in mind, in particular, the situation in which judges will find themselves in trying to sum up complicated cases of this kind to a jury.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: I am grateful for this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House the decision of the Welsh Regional Hospital Board, a decision somewhat surprisingly concurred in at present by the Secretary of State for Wales, to close the maternity unit at Nantyglo and Blaina Hospital in my constituency. I raise this matter in the real hope that common sense will yet prevail and that this piece...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: The situation then was different. In the first instance, there were only eight beds in the Nantyglo maternity unit, as opposed to fourteen now; and in the second place, it was not then envisaged by the then Secretary of State that there would have to be a second maternity unit opened in order to provide the extra beds required because St. James's could not provide an adequate number.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: On a point of order. Is there not a limit to the number of times that a speech can be repeated in this House?
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will hold an inquiry into the reasons for the closure of the maternity unit at Nantyglo and Blaina Hospital; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: Is the Minister aware of the grave anxiety which certain allegations by the Welsh Hospital Board have caused in the area? Will he give an assurance that, should the situation at St. James's prove to be one where they cannot cope with the need, the position will be re-examined?
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the unemployment situation is now so grave that he can no longer fall back on bromides and platitudes to explain it? Is he not losing credibility in the Principality because of his absurd and continued suggestion that the situation is the fault of the Previous Government? Is he not aware that the time has now come for his Government to...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) may have touched on the real mischief of the Bill. It is neither wholly good nor wholly bad; it is a kind of mongrel Bill. The Government have lost an opportunity of speaking with a clear voice about the real problems affecting thousands of people not only in the South Wales valleys but in the country as a whole. It seems that,...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us where he was when the land was nationalised, and if he was in the House whether he completely misunderstood what was happening?
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: I take the point that he never had a chance, because he was given the wrong vehicle with which to travel along the road. There is agreement that the objectives of the Board are desirable. Before I entered this House I told Mr. Cowen that I did not believe that the organisation was one which could succeed. He was faced with an almost insoluble problem. The right hon. Member for Anglesey is a...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: A few moments ago I understood the hon. Gentleman to be underlining the great divide between the two sides. Is he now saying that there is a firm consensus between the two sides? I think he should make clear what he is saying.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: I, too, was somewhat startled to hear that the Minister regarded this Measure, to some extent at any rate, as the redemption of an election pledge. I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue. On the basis that it was, my hon. Friends and I cannot reach a consensus that the measure is to be welcomed. I rise to make two short points. The first concerns the sentence of 10 years. In my view,...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates officials of the Welsh Office have visited Brussels; and what are the names of the members of the Commission, of the Council of Ministers, and of the officials of the European Economic Community with whom they held discussions.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: What assurances were sought by the Welsh Office officials during their visit? What undertaking or assurances were given about regional policies? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman order his officials to prepare and publish a report at the earliest moment?
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: asked the Attorney-General if he will now take steps to cause St. David's Day to be designated a Red Letter Day.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will cause great disappointment to thousands of people in Wales? Would he not agree that the time has come to stop this discrimination between Scotland—St. Andrew being the saint whose day is marked with a Red Letter—and Wales? Would he also agree that it would be a suitable tribute now to designate St. David's Day a Red Letter Day having...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: The real difficulty when somebody is in unlawful possession of an article is in proving the intention of the person in relation to its use. This is why the words were used in that particular place in the provision.
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: The Clause as it now stands represents in our view a serious and far-reaching encroachment of individual liberty. If these Clauses had been introduced by a Labour Administration the dogs of war would have been unleashed and we should have been the victims of the kind of Press attack normally reserved for child beaters and abductors of orphans. It is indicative of a wholly new concept of law...
Mr Jeffrey Thomas: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). The cause of our anxieties was illustrated by the Under-Secretary's example of the spanner, of the man who in his own home is in possession of a spanner with intent eventually to use it to cause enormous damage to property. In this event, the situation is more than adequately covered. I could not imagine...