UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Theresa May – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Theresa May – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Conservative MP for Maidenhead, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    May I add my thanks to all those who have made this hybrid debate possible, because this Bill is hugely important? Domestic abuse damages lives. It can cost lives and it ​can scar adults and children for the rest of their lives. Of course, it also costs our society and economy dear. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who have had courage to speak out about their experiences. I would also like particularly to commend the hon. Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for their contributions to the debate on 2 October.

    This Bill is an incredibly important opportunity for us to ensure that we improve the legislative environment for dealing with domestic abuse and that, by doing so, we improve the response of Government and other agencies. If we get it right, it will not only improve people’s lives; it will save lives.

    It is important, as those on the Front Benches have said, that we are debating this Bill during the covid-19 crisis, because as covid-19 has required people to stay at home, to be locked down in their homes, it has set an environment where perpetrators have greater freedom to act, where victims find it harder to leave an abusive situation. The figures are clear: domestic abuse increases during lockdown.

    We know, as the Justice Secretary told us, that the services are still there. The police are still there to respond to reports of domestic violence. We must reiterate today that the lockdown legislation specifically allows people to leave home to escape the risk of harm, so those who are in a domestic abuse situation can leave and seek the support they need. What we must also recognise, however, is that it is much harder for them to leave and to report domestic abuse, because perpetrators have been given greater control of them in the lockdown situation. They can take their mobiles away and stop them walking out of that front door.

    I urge police officers and local authorities to look at the past experience of the New York Police Department, and to consider, as I know some already are, the random contact with or visiting of homes where there are known perpetrators or where there have been reports of domestic violence. It must be done carefully to ensure that it does not exacerbate a situation, but it can help those victims.

    I also urge Government, as they consider the exit strategy from lockdown, to think of the impact that lockdown has had on domestic abuse. I want Government to look not just at the impact of relaxing restrictions on capacity in the national health service, although we must all have a concern for our wonderful NHS staff and care workers and for those who contract the disease, but at the impact of lockdown on our overall health and wellbeing as a nation. That of course includes the economy, but it must also include the impact on domestic abuse and mental health. We cannot have a situation where the cure for the disease does more damage than the disease itself. When it is in place, this Bill will help victims and improve the criminal justice response, but as lockdown is eased the Government also need to ensure that the criminal justice system and services for victims can cope with what could be a significant increase in reports of domestic abuse.

    On the detail of the Bill, I welcome the important step of setting a clear definition of domestic abuse. I just want to touch on three quick points. We need to ensure that the Bill properly recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children. Just because they are in a different room from the abuse does not mean that they will not be affected by it.​
    The role of employers is important. A good employer can set the scenario where their employees are able to report and speak about the domestic abuse that they are the victims of and to know that they will be supported. I commend the work of Elizabeth Filkin and the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse. I have tried to find a way of recognising employers’ work in the Bill. I am not sure it is possible, but I hope the Minister will be able to recognise it in winding up.

    Thirdly, as well as supporting victims, we need to stop perpetrators. We need to ensure that perpetrator programmes can be properly accredited. It is a difficult area, but we need to give it far more attention than we have in the past. So this is a hugely important piece of legislation. Too many lives are damaged and too many lives are lost because of domestic abuse. If we get this Bill right, it can help to achieve our ultimate goal, which is eradicating domestic abuse.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Labour MP for Torfaen, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    I would like to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Speaker, the House authorities and all staff for facilitating the sitting of the House in these most unusual circumstances.

    I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his welcome. He and I have debated many times at the Dispatch Box in various roles, and I look forward to continuing to do so in future. I also look forward to debating with the Home Secretary when she is next in Parliament.

    The Lord Chancellor was absolutely right to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for their very moving speeches in October, when the Bill was last before the House.

    I welcome the Bill’s return to us today, in these extraordinary circumstances. The Opposition support it, and it is entirely right that, even in the midst of this crisis, we send the strongest possible message that tackling the appalling crime of domestic abuse remains a priority and that some of the urgently needed provisions in the Bill can progress.

    However, it is not without bitter irony that we face the prospect of pushing forward with the Bill in such a constrained timeframe. After all, it was as far back as March 2018 when the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor but one, who no longer sits in this House, announced the initial consultation for the Bill, and it was promised long before that. The wait has been too long for those desperately needed provisions, and many others besides, that should be included in the Bill. I will come back to that.

    The lockdown has changed patterns of crime. Over the weekend, the National Crime Agency announced that it had alerted the police to 1,300 potential child sexual abuse cases and that it had also recently arrested a British man possessing indecent images of children who was attempting to re-enter the UK from the Philippines. That paints a worrying picture and we must do all in our power to stop such abuses and prevent them from ever taking place. I pay tribute to the NCA, particularly its director general, Lynne Owens, who is leading the fight to tackle those heinous crimes.

    Isolating victims from the support of others is what the perpetrators of domestic abuse often seek to do, so it is sadly no surprise that the coronavirus crisis and the lockdown required to deal with it have produced the conditions in which domestic abuse has sharply increased. At the end of last week, the Metropolitan police reported that in the six weeks up to 19 April, officers across London had made 14,093 arrests for domestic abuse offences—nearly 100 a day on average—and domestic abuse calls had risen by around a third. At the same time, the national domestic abuse helpline has experienced a 25% increase in calls and online requests for help.

    Clearly, the warning signals of abuse are flashing red. We have been seeing and hearing those warnings from the domestic abuse sector since the start of the crisis. Asking people to stay at home when home might not be a safe place is clearly a huge challenge. Add to that the massive operational challenge that the need for social distancing creates for refuges and related services and the drop-off in charity funding, and it is clear that services for some of the most at-risk people face ​extraordinary difficulty. That is why I have been clear since becoming the shadow Home Secretary that the Government must take action on tackling domestic abuse and supporting the wider sector that deals with violence against women and girls.

    Government action, such as the £2 million of funding for a helpline, is welcome, as is the You Are Not Alone public campaign, but it is not enough to provide the emergency support necessary. For a start, that £2 million needs to reach the frontline. We will work constructively and responsibly, and we have repeated the offer to discuss what can be done to fast-track that support.

    One of my first priorities was to meet representatives from the sector with the shadow Domestic Violence and Safeguarding Minister. Many of those women have put themselves in harm’s way throughout their working lives to stand up for people who are facing abuse, and that is even more true in the middle of the current crisis. The message they gave me was absolutely clear: not only does the coronavirus crisis seem to be pushing up the rate of domestic abuse, but it is putting extraordinary pressure on the services that people turn to for help. Refuges face a massive challenge in keeping their doors open while sticking to the social distancing rules. We are asking people to do the right thing and stay at home, so it is only right that the country is there to support the people put at direct risk by those measures.

    The Government have yet to engage fully, and the action does remain too slow. It is our intention to try to set out in Committee amendments that would guarantee rapid support for the domestic abuse charities from the £750 million fund that the Chancellor announced to support charity work. I would like to say from the outset that that in itself is an inadequate amount, and I urge the Chancellor to think again. The Lord Chancellor mentioned making allocations, but let me make this suggestion to him. First, a dedicated proportion of the £750 million should be ring-fenced for domestic abuse and the wider violence against women and girls sector. We say 10%, which is not unreasonable and would keep services going. Secondly, a system should be in place to fast-track that investment to the frontline before charities have to close their doors for being oversubscribed or unable to pay their staff. Thirdly, an element of support should be earmarked for specialist services such as BAME services run with and for migrant women, men who are at risk of or suffering domestic abuse, and specialist LGBTQ services.

    I do not want to stand here and criticise the Government. I want the Minister to show the grip and urgency that the challenge requires and needs urgently. It cannot be right that vital services for the most at-risk people are in the position of turning people away because of a lack of funding. As I set out in my recent letter to the Home Secretary, there are a range of ways that the Government can help the sector, such as co-ordinating access to under-used existing accommodation; ensuring that support workers have access to PPE; providing technological support; and ensuring that women are not trapped in abusive situations because they have no recourse to public funds. That requires grip and a more joined-up cross-Government approach. We have seen that happening in the devolved Administrations, such as the £1.2 million fund created by the Welsh Government to purchase community accommodation for victims, to enable move-on ​accommodation and prevent lack of bed spaces in refuges or, indeed, to provide other accommodation when a refuge is not the right answer. In London, the Mayor has dedicated £4 million to the London community response fund, taking the total to £16 million to help the capital’s community and voluntary organisations. The lesson is that, with political will, these changes can be made. The need is now and the Government must respond to that challenge.

    I turn to the Bill itself. It clearly is, as the Lord Chancellor set out, a step forward to have a statutory definition in the first clause of the Bill that also includes, in addition to violent and sexually threatening behaviour, controlling and coercive behaviour and other forms of abuse, including economic, psychological and emotional. I welcome the appointment of a domestic abuse commissioner and pay tribute to the work that Nicole Jacobs is doing as designate commissioner, alongside the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, and indeed the children’s commissioners across the UK. I welcome the domestic abuse protection orders and the notices, although I hope that they will be accompanied by support, training and resources our officers need. On the family courts, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that the prohibition of cross-examination of victims by perpetrators in person is welcome and long overdue, and I remember speaking on it myself in the Prisons and Courts Bill, which fell before the 2017 general election. I am glad the wait will not be even more protracted.

    We will look to improve the Bill in Committee, and the sector must have its full say in giving evidence to the Committee. That process of scrutiny would be far more effective if we had more information before us. The Home Office has undertaken a review of how migrant women, especially those with no recourse to public funds, interact with domestic abuse provision. Having that review available to members of the Committee is very important.

    The second issue on which there is a currently unpublished review is the family courts. Prior to the coronavirus crisis, it was thought that the family justice review panel would report this spring on how the family courts protect children and parents in cases of domestic abuse and other serious offences. Again, having that available would greatly enhance the Committee stage.

    A victim is a victim. We will press the Government on protections for disabled victims. We cannot tolerate a situation where victims with insecure migrant status are not only prevented by that from coming forward, but actually have it used against them by someone abusing them. That is why, as I have argued, the Government should suspend the system of no recourse to public funds during the coronavirus crisis, so that victims can get the support they need, not only in their interests but in all our interests in this public health emergency.

    In Committee, we will also press the Government on a clear statutory duty on public authorities in England and Wales to commission specialist domestic abuse support and services for all people affected by domestic abuse, regardless of status. That should include a duty on the Secretary of State to provide sufficient funding. The duty should be to all who are affected by domestic abuse, including those with insecure immigration status, ​children and young people. Let us make sure, too, that there are perpetrator programmes with proper quality assurance as to their standard.

    We will also push the Government on measures on post-separation abuse. In fact, it is often the case that when perpetrators lose control of the situation, their behaviour becomes even more extreme and the victims require greater protection. I say to the Lord Chancellor that although there are existing laws, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, more is required to be done to tackle the threat to people even after the particular relationship has ended. We will press that in Committee.

    The Bill contains a series of measures that will clearly have wide support across the House. I pay tribute to all those people who worked on it, particularly in the last Parliament, including, on these Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who pushed it forward with her characteristic passion and determination. She is not sat in the House today, but I am sure she will be watching at home. She should have our thanks for the way that she conducted herself.

    I implore the Government to keep an open mind in Committee as to how the Bill can be improved. If they decide that they want to ignore all the suggestions for improvement, that will be an extraordinarily grave mistake. The Bill is a real opportunity to consensually make vital changes in the interests of victims and potential victims up and down the country.

    We should remember, too, that many services that we rely on to respond to the crisis, and to support women and girls at risk of violence, have faced a toxic cocktail of cuts to policing and preventive services for a decade. We did not go into the crisis with the resilience that we would all have hoped for.

    I conclude by giving my deepest thanks to the frontline workers who are doing so much to keep our communities safe and who are working especially hard to protect those most at risk. They deserve all our gratitude and respect for all that they do, putting themselves at risk to keep us all safe.

    Desperate as these circumstances are, I say to anyone who is at home and afraid that they are not alone. Since taking up this role, I have made it my priority to speak to senior and frontline officers, who all assured me that tackling domestic abuse remains exactly where it should be—right at the top of their priority list—and that anyone who feels that they need their support should reach out. The message that should go out from this House today is that they are not alone.

  • Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

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

    It is a great pleasure to open this Second Reading debate, albeit with a sense of déjà vu. Those of us who had the privilege of being in the House on 2 October last year will not have failed to be moved by the many powerful contributions we heard, including from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who recounted her own very personal and heart-wrenching experience of domestic abuse. She was not alone in showing great courage by bringing home to this House the devastating impact of domestic abuse on the lives of survivors, as this Bill has also brought forth very personal accounts from, among others, the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). On that occasion, I was able to share my own personal experiences, as a young barrister, of domestic abuse. I will not repeat them today, because I have no doubt that we will hear some memorable speeches in this debate—more testimony, adding power to what has already been said.

    After the last debate, some Members approached me privately to share with me their own domestic abuse experiences—stories that are still raw and still cannot be told. For many of us, the sounds and sights witnessed in our homes, often as children, still haunt us many years on. The experiences we have heard recounted by Members are, sadly, all too frequently repeated across the country. I have heard no more harrowing account recently than that of Claire Throssell, whom I had the privilege to meet last October. Claire’s young sons, Jack and Paul, were killed at the hands of her abusive partner. No one can imagine the pain and suffering that she has had to endure, but we owe her a debt of gratitude for giving such a powerful voice to the survivors of domestic abuse.

    Gratitude is also due to Tracy Graham, a victim of controlling and violent domestic abuse who this year chose to speak out, go public and share her experiences with my local community in Swindon via the new Swindon domestic abuse support service, which I helped ​to launch just before lockdown, seven weeks ago. Tracy is not only a domestic abuse ambassador for the service, but is volunteering with the local police as well, to help to support domestic abuse victims who are going through what she went through. She truly is an inspirational young woman—one of many who are standing up, stepping forward and sharing their harrowing experiences, to the benefit of current and future survivors and victims.

    It is right, in this time of covid-19, to dwell a little on the impact that this pandemic is having on victims of domestic abuse and their families. We are seeing evidence of it in the increased calls to domestic abuse helplines. My local refuge had an increase in referrals of 80% in one week, and the helpline in my local area had an increase in the number of calls of nearly 30%. People are speaking up and speaking out about domestic abuse, but it is happening even at this time of great crisis.

    The phrase “Stay at home”, which we so associate with the directions to deal with covid-19, should be words of reassurance and comfort. The home should be a place of safety, both physical and mental. The concept of the home as a refuge is such a strong one, yet for too many people it is not a refuge. At this time of lockdown, that fear, distress and suffering is multiplied. I assure all victims that help is available. The police continue to respond to incidents of domestic abuse, and anyone in immediate danger should not hesitate to call 999 and the emergency services. Where necessary, the existing civil order framework can be used to remove a perpetrator from the family home in order to protect victims of abuse.

    We are working with and listening carefully to domestic abuse and victims organisations to make sure that we understand what their most pressing needs and priorities are, and we are committed to ensuring that victims have a comprehensive package of support available. We have launched a new campaign to signpost victims to the support services available and provided an additional £2.6 million to ensure that the national helplines have the capacity to respond to increased demand.

    In addition, we are working with the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that refuges and other organisations that provide frontline support to victims will be able to access the £750 million fund set aside by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to bolster charities that are responding directly to the pandemic. I am happy to say to the House that allocations under the charities package will be made very shortly indeed. The Home Secretary and I have together been very much engaged in tailoring the requests to ensure that help is targeted where it will make the most difference. Having spoken to police and crime commissioners, I know that many are making available extra resources for safe accommodation.

    I am grateful to the Home Affairs Committee for the report that it published yesterday on the pandemic’s impact on victims of domestic abuse. I welcome the Committee’s support for our public information campaign and the additional funding. We will of course respond promptly to the Committee’s recommendations.

    In short, this is a concerted period of direct action being taken by the Government. Measures are being taken to address directly the concerns that I know the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), whom I welcome to his post, will raise in due course.​

    Let me turn to the Bill, which is necessarily about strengthening protection and support for victims in the longer term. I share the frustration of Members from all parties that we are having to repeat a number of stages of this Bill, which was initially championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). All parties want to see this Bill on the statute book, but we have to put to good use the time available to us since the election to make it an even stronger Bill than the one that came before the House last October.

    The aims of the Bill are fourfold: first, to raise awareness of this insidious crime; secondly, to better protect and support victims and their children; thirdly, to transform the response to the criminal, civil and family justice systems; and, fourthly, to improve performance across all national and local agencies. I shall take those objectives in turn.

    If we are to tackle domestic abuse effectively, it is vital that the nature of that abuse is properly understood and recognised. Part 1 of the Bill sets out a statutory definition of domestic abuse. It will apply for the purposes of the whole Bill, but we also expect it to be adopted across all agencies that have a shared responsibility for combating this crime and for helping survivors to rebuild their lives. The definition makes it clear that domestic abuse is not confined to violent or sexual abuse, but includes controlling or coercive behaviour, psychological abuse and economic abuse, too. Identifying and calling out domestic abuse in all its manifestations is just a first step. We then need to protect and support victims. In terms of protection, a number of civil orders are already available to help to safeguard survivors, but the existing landscape of occupation orders, non-molestation orders and domestic violence protection orders is complex, and none are, arguably, wholly adequate to the task.

    The new domestic abuse protection order—DAPO—will bring together the best elements of the existing civil order regimes. It will be available in the civil, criminal and family courts. It will be flexible, in that the court will determine the length of an order and decide what prohibitions, and positive requirements too, are appropriate to attach to it, including conditions that may compel the respondent to attend perpetrator programmes or require them to wear an electronic tag. The new DAPO will also have teeth, with a breach of conditions being a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.

    We want to get these new orders right so that they work for victims and their children, the police, the courts and others who will have to operate them. We will therefore be piloting these new orders in a small number of areas before rolling them out nationally.

    But protecting victims from abuse is never enough on its own. We also need to ensure that they are effectively supported as they reset their lives. The Bill, as reintroduced, includes a significant new measure to that end. When a victim of abuse has to flee their home and seek sanctuary in a refuge or other safe accommodation, it is not enough simply to provide that person with a safe place to sleep. In such circumstances, victims and their children need access to counselling and mental health support, advice about follow-on housing, help in enrolling children in a new school, or specialist support, such as translation services or access to immigration advice. We know that ​refuges and other providers of safe accommodation struggle to provide such support so, to plug that gap, the Bill will place new duties on tier 1 local authorities in England. Under part 4 of the Bill, such local authorities will be required to assess the need for accommodation-based support for all victims of domestic abuse and their children in the area. Having identified that need, the relevant local authorities will then be required to develop, publish and give effect to a strategy for the provision of such support in their locality.

    Of course, these new duties will come at a cost—some £90 million a year, we estimate. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary is committed to ensuring that local authorities are appropriately resourced as part of the spending review.

    I know from my own experience of the legal system that appearing as a witness in criminal, civil or family proceedings can be—shall we say—a daunting experience, so we need to make sure that the victims of domestic abuse can give their best evidence in court. In the criminal courts, that often means being able to give evidence hidden from view of the alleged perpetrator or via a video link. The Bill provides that these and other so-called special measures will be automatically available to victims. In the family courts, for a long time, there have been calls for a bar on the practice of perpetrators being able to cross-examine in person the victims of domestic abuse. Such an experience is bound to be traumatising for victims—it must stop. We have listened to the views of the Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill. Indeed, the Bill as reintroduced now extends the circumstances in which the automatic prohibition on cross-examination in person applies, which is a welcome further step to safeguard and prevent the perpetuation of abuse through the courts.

    I know that there are wider concerns about the experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the family courts, which was why we established last year a specialist panel to examine how effectively the family courts respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other harms in private law proceedings, including around the provision of special measures. I aim to publish very shortly the panel’s recommendations, together with the Government’s response. One way we can improve the experiences of victims is by better integrating domestic abuse-related proceedings right across the various jurisdictions in our courts.

    With that in mind, we committed in our manifesto to pilot integrated family and crime domestic abuse courts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set aside £5 million in his March Budget to allow that important pilot to progress. Again, I expect to be able to inform the House soon as to how the trial of these new integrated domestic abuse courts will be taken forward. I will take a close personal interest, to make sure that there is a genuine bringing together of the jurisdictions around the victim, around the family—around those people who need the support and benefit of any orders and sanctions that the court might impose.

    It is not only the courts where there is room for improvement. The new independent domestic abuse commissioner will help drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse right across the relevant local and national agencies. The relevant agencies will be under a statutory duty to co-operate with the commissioner, and will be required to respond within 56 days to any recommendations that the ​commissioner makes. We are lucky to have Nicole Jacobs, who brings a wealth of experience to the role, and I fully expect her to perform her functions without fear or favour.

    I know that, on the previous Second Reading, a number of hon. Members argued for the post to be full time. We reviewed—with Nicole Jacobs—the appropriate time commitment for this role and have now extended it from three to four days per week. The Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), will keep this matter under review as we transition to the statutory arrangements provided for in part 2 of the Bill.

    We did not want to wait until the Bill became law to make that appointment, and I am very glad we did not, because Nicole Jacobs is already making a huge difference. One area where we want to draw on her experience is in the provision of community-based support. As I described, the provisions in part 4 of the Bill will make sure that victims of domestic abuse in safe accommodation receive the support they need, but of course most victims of abuse remain in their own home, and they need to be able to access appropriate support while doing so.

    Victim support services are provided in the community by police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other agencies, but the landscape is, frankly, complex, and there are undoubtedly gaps in the current provision. In order to determine what action needs to be taken, we must better understand the existing routes by which these services are commissioned and funded. To that end, the domestic abuse commissioner has agreed to undertake an in-depth exploration of the current community-based landscape of support. Once we have her findings and recommendations, we will work with her to understand the needs identified and to develop the right options for how best to address them.

    Finally, I will say a few words about the amendments put forward in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). It is absolutely right that we reinforce current case law that a person cannot consent to violence that leads to serious injury or death. To be clear, there is no such thing as the rough sex defence. I had a productive meeting with both Members to discuss the issue, and, as I made clear to them, we are looking at how best to address it. It is a complex area of criminal law, and we need to ensure that any statutory provisions have the desired effect and do not have any unintended consequences; we do not want to inadvertently create loopholes or uncertainties in the law that can then be exploited by those who perpetrate crimes. I am confident that we will be able to set out our approach in time for Report, and I am grateful for the continuing constructive engagement on this important and sensitive issue.

    Domestic abuse is one of the most prevalent crimes in our society—let us be honest and frank about that. It is staggering that some 2.4 million people experience domestic abuse each year, and unforgivable that, on average, more than two individuals, the majority of whom are women, are killed each and every week in a domestic homicide.

    Tackling domestic abuse needs to be everyone’s business, from prevention to protection to prosecution to support. Legislation alone can never have all the answers, but I believe that this landmark Bill will make a significant contribution and I commend it to the House.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (23/04/2020)

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (23/04/2020)

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, at St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh on 23 April 2020.

    Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining us for today’s briefing as usual.

    Today I’m going to focus quite a lot on the paper we’ve just published about how we might, at the right time and in the right way, begin to restore some normality to our lives, while still containing the COVID-19 virus.

    But before I do that, I will start as usual with an update on some of the key statistics in relation to the virus in Scotland.

    As at 9 o’clock this morning, there have been 9,409 positive cases confirmed – which is an increase of 371 from yesterday.

    A total of 1,748 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients are in hospital – and that is a decrease of 28 from yesterday.

    And a total of 148 people last night were in intensive care with confirmed or suspected cases of the virus. And that is a decrease of seven since yesterday. Let me say again as I did yesterday, these figures on hospital admissions and admissions in to intensive care are very encouraging and do give us real optimism at this stage.

    However in the last 24 hours, I am very sorry to have to report that 58 deaths have been registered of patients who had been confirmed through a test as having the virus – and that takes the total number of deaths in Scotland, under that measurement, to 1,120.

    Once again, it’s really important for all of us to remember that each of these deaths represents a unique, loved and irreplaceable individual. And I want to again extend my deepest condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one.

    I also want again to thank all of our health and care workers right across the country. This evening many thousands of us will, yet again applaud your efforts – we are all so deeply grateful to you for the extraordinary work you are doing.

    So let me turn now to the paper we have published just a few moments ago about the decisions we will need to take as we seek to contain this virus while also restoring a semblance of normality to our lives.

    And I want to be very clear with you at the outset – what we are publishing at this stage today is, by necessity, a first cut.

    I am seeking today really, to start a grown up conversation with you, the public.

    The decisions that lie ahead of us, of all of us, are really complex.

    We will – as we have done all along – seek to inform those decisions with the best scientific advice possible.

    But the science will never be exact, so we will also require to make very careful judgments.

    And we are in uncharted territory – it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty what the impact of our decisions will be in advance.

    That means we must also be prepared to adapt and change course as we go. We want to ease restrictions, of course we do, but we cannot absolutely rule out having to reapply some of them in future should we have evidence that the virus is again running out of control.

    And I want to be frank with you every single step of the way about all of these complexities and uncertainties.

    So while today’s paper is still quite high level, it is the start of a process.

    It sets out the objectives and the principles that will guide us, the different factors that we will need to take into account, the framework in which we will take decisions, and the preparations we need to make now.

    In the days and the weeks ahead, evidence, data and modelling will allow us to take firmer decisions.

    As that happens, this paper will evolve into a detailed plan with metrics, actions, milestones and measurements attached to it.

    And I give an assurance today that as we go through this process, we will share our thinking on an ongoing, iterative basis.

    But let me briefly set out some of the key points today.

    Firstly, and this is an obvious point, this virus causes real harm. And we see that every day in the statistics that we report, especially in the numbers of people who have died.

    But the lockdown measures we are taking to contain the virus are also doing damage.

    They’re doing harm to the economy and to living standards, to children’s education, to other aspects of our physical health, and to mental health and wellbeing. And the toll of all of that may also, in time, be measured in poorer health outcomes and lives lost.

    So we must try to find a better balance than the one we have right now.

    But my second point is that, as we do so, we cannot and we must not take our eye off the need to suppress the virus and minimise the damage that it does.

    And let me be very clear about this, continuing to suppress COVID-19 is the central objective that we set out in this paper today.

    Obviously, we cannot guarantee that no one will get this virus in the future – far from it – but an assumption that it is somehow safe to allow a certain proportion or a certain section of the population to get the virus is not part of the approach we will be taking.

    Third, we are increasingly confident that measures we are taking now are suppressing the virus.

    The key factor – and you may have heard this before – is what is known as the reproduction rate – the R number. And that needs be as far below one as possible.

    Now before lockdown that R number was very likely above three. And that means everyone with the virus was infecting three more people, each of them was infecting three more people and so on and on. That is what is exponential growth.

    Our best estimate now is that the R number is somewhere between 0.6 and one – though I should say that it is probably still higher in certain settings, such as care homes.

    But we can’t yet be absolutely sure about any of that. That’s why we need more time to monitor the statistics we report every day – like case numbers, hospital and ICU admissions, and numbers of deaths. And we need to develop further our data through ongoing surveillance.

    It’s only when we are sure that the virus is under control that we can even start to ease any of the restrictions.

    And it’s my next point really that takes us to the hard part.

    When we do reach that stage, the virus will be under control only because of the severity of the restrictions we are all living with just now. But the virus will not have gone away.

    So as we start to lift the restrictions, the real risk – and it is a very real risk – is that COVID-19 runs rampant again.

    So a return to normal as we knew it is not on the cards in the near future. And it’s really important that I am upfront with you right now about that.

    What we will be seeking to do is find a new normal – a way of living alongside this virus, but in a form that keeps it under control and stops it taking the toll that we know it can do.

    Social distancing and limiting our contacts with others will be a fact of life for a long time to come – certainly until treatments and ultimately a vaccine offer different solutions. So that means possibly for the rest of this year and maybe even beyond.

    And that’s why talk of lifting the lockdown – as if it’s a flick of a switch moment – is misguided.

    Our steps – when we take them – will need to be careful, gradual, incremental and probably quite small to start with.

    We will need to assess them in advance and monitor them in action. Sometimes, as I said a moment ago, we may even need to reverse things.

    As we go, we will apply our judgment to the best scientific advice possible, we will continue to collaborate closely with the other governments across the UK, and we will learn from international experience. The fact is that different countries are at different stages of this pandemic – but none of us are anywhere near through it yet and we all face the same challenges.

    So as we make these decisions here, careful balances will have to be struck.

    For example, it may be that be that certain business in certain sectors can re-open – but only if they can change how they work to keep employees and customers two metres distant from each other.

    Similarly with schools – classrooms may have to be redesigned to allow social distancing, so maybe not all children can go back to or be at school at the same times.

    Some limited outdoor activity might be able to restart earlier than indoor activity. But let me be clear, big gatherings and events are likely to be off for some months to come.

    We will also consider whether different approaches would make sense for different areas – though our preference, not least for ease of understanding, will be for as much consistency as possible.

    And of course given how severely this virus is affecting older people and those with other health vulnerabilities, some form of shielding will almost certainly be required for the foreseeable future.

    Now let me stress that what I have just set out there are not firm decisions – but they do illustrate the kind of options we will be assessing.

    And as we do so, we will consider not just the health imperatives, but also issues of practicality, sustainability, fairness and equity, ethics and human rights.

    And lastly, as well as changes to how we live, we will use public health interventions and technology to the maximum possible to help us control this virus.

    In the next phase, extensive testing, tracing of those who test positive and the isolation of symptomatic people to break the chain of transmission will be a central part of the approach that we will take. And the preparations to make that possible are already under way.

    We will also discuss with the UK government – for this is a reserved responsibility – the need for stronger surveillance measures for those coming into the country from elsewhere.

    So in short, this paper sets out the difficult decisions we face and the way in which we will go about preparing for them, making them and also assessing their impact.

    I want to stress again because it’s important that I am frank. The path ahead is not an easy one – it is paved with complexity and uncertainty. But with openness, transparency and frankness along the way, I believe that together we will be able to navigate it. It is for me and for government to work through and lead that process. But this is about all of us – hence this discussion that we are opening up with all of you today.

    The paper we have published is available on the Scottish Government website. I will post a link to it on Twitter, later this afternoon.

    So, please, even if – like I suspect most of the population – you are not in the habit of reading government documents, have a look at it. And if you have views on it please let us know. These views are important and will be helpful.

    As I said earlier, I will continue to share our thinking with you as it develops.

    But let me now end now on a vital point and one that you have become used to hearing me make each day. Moving on from where we are now as all of us want to do as quickly as it is safe to do will only be possible if and when we do get this virus properly under control.

    And that means sticking with the current rules that are in place just now.

    Stay at home except for essential purposes.

    Stay two metres apart from others when you have to be out.

    Do not meet up with people from other households.

    And isolate completely if you or anyone in your household has symptoms.

    This is tough, this is the toughest set of circumstances that the vast majority of us have ever lived through – and I can’t stand here and promise you it is going to get a whole lot easier soon.

    But as I hope we have started to set out today, if we keep doing the right things, and if we consider all of the options carefully and with the right objectives in mind, I do believe there will be a way through.

    And we will find that way through. So thank you for all you are doing to help. And please if you can, engage with this discussion as we go through the days and weeks to come.

    Thank you very much for your patience right now in allowing me to go through that in detail.

  • George Eustice – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    George Eustice – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by George Eustice, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 26 April 2020.

    Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s Downing Street Press Conference. I’m pleased to be joined today by Stephen Powis, the National Medical Director of NHS England.

    Before I update you on the latest developments in the food supply chain, let me first give you an update on the latest data from the COBR coronavirus data file. Through the government’s ongoing monitoring and testing programme, as of today:

    669,850 tests for coronavirus have now been carried out in the UK, including 29,058 tests carried out yesterday;

    152,840 people have tested positive, that’s an increase of 4,463 cases since yesterday;

    15,953 people are currently in hospital with the coronavirus in the UK, down from 16,411 on 25 April.

    And sadly, of those hospitalised with the virus, 20,732 have now died. That is an increase of 413 fatalities since yesterday.

    We express our deepest condolences to the families and friends of these victims.

    At the beginning of the outbreak of this virus we saw significant problems in panic buying. That episode quickly subsided and food availability now is back to normal levels and has been for several weeks. All supermarkets have introduced social distancing measures to protect both their staff and their customers and it is essential that shoppers respect these measures.

    The food supply chain has also seen a significant reduction in staff absence over recent weeks. As staff who had been self-isolating through suspected coronavirus symptoms have returned to work. So absence levels are down from a peak of typically 20% in food businesses three weeks ago to less than 10% at the end of last week and in some cases individual companies reporting absences as low as 6%.

    We have put in place measures to support the clinically vulnerable. So far 500,000 food parcels have been delivered to the shielded group, that is those who cannot leave home at all due to a clinical condition that they have. In addition, the major supermarkets have agreed to prioritise delivery slots for those in this shielded group. So far over 300,000 such deliveries have been made, enabling people to shop normally and choose the goods that they want to buy.

    We recognise that there are others who are not clinically vulnerable and therefore are not in that shielded group but who may also be in need of help. Perhaps through having a disability or another type of medical condition, or indeed, being unable to draw on family and neighbours to help them. We have been working with local authorities to ensure that those people can be allocated a volunteer shopper to help them get their food needs. Charities such as Age UK and others can now also make also direct referrals on the Good Samaritan App to locate volunteers for those in need.

    Many supermarkets have taken steps to increase the number of delivery slots that they have. At the beginning of this virus outbreak there were typically 2.1 million delivery slots in the entire supermarket chain. That has now increased to 2.6 million, and over the next couple of weeks we anticipate that that will grow further to 2.9 million. So supermarkets have taken steps to increase their capacity but while this capacity has expanded, it will still not be enough to meet all of the demand that is out there.

    Some supermarkets have already chosen to prioritise some vulnerable customers with a proportion of the delivers slots that they have and others have offered to work with us and also local authorities to help establish a referral system so that when somebody is in desperate need, a local authority is able to make a referral to make sure that they can get a priority slot.

    As we look forward more generally towards the next stage in our battle against this virus, there are encouraging signs of progress, but before we consider it safe to adjust any of the current social distancing measures, we must be satisfied that we have met the five tests set out last week by the First Secretary.

    Those tests mean that the NHS can continue to cope;

    that the daily death rate falls sustainably and consistently;

    that the rate of infection is decreasing; and operational challenges have been met;

    and, most important of all, that there is no risk of a second peak.

    For now, the most important thing we can all do to stop the spread of the coronavirus is to stay at home, to protect the NHS and save lives.

    I want to pay tribute to all those who are working throughout the food supply chain from farmers, manufacturers and retailers. The response of this industry to ensure that we have the food that we need has been truly phenomenal.

    Thank you.

  • David Howell – 1978 Speech on the Home Office

    David Howell – 1978 Speech on the Home Office

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Howell, the then Conservative MP for Guildford, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1978.

    I begin by reassuring the Home Secretary of one thing. He may sometimes feel that events are moving against him on every side, especially when he reads the newspapers, but let me make it clear that we fully back all firm steps that he and his Department take to tackle crime and uphold the law. In particular, we back every step that he now feels necessary to maintain order in the prisons and safeguard the proper administration of the law against any threats from the current industrial action. I shall make more comments on the prisons later, but I thought that I should make that clear now.

    We have also supported all along the approach through the Edmund-Davies committee inquiry. Indeed, we urged it on the Home Secretary and thought that it should have come earlier. On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said that he welcomed the prisons inquiry, although some of us have criticised it for being a bit belated. We were glad to learn about the Home Secretary’s conference on vandalism and were glad of the message of concern about vandalism on the part of not only the right hon. Gentleman but the Prime Minister.
    We are glad that that matter has been taken on board, although I must say that the Central Policy Review Staff, the Think Tank in the Cabinet Office, still has something to learn about the dangers of producing sketchy reports—or illustrative and rapid reviews, as I think it calls them—on issues as sensitive as this. I am not sure that that is the right role for the CPRS to play, and I do not think that its report added much to our understanding of matters.

    We have followed the Home Secretary’s efforts and support the moves that we believe are firm and right in tackling this matter. Naturally, we hope to push him a little further or at any rate to lay the foundations for the reforms that we plan to carry out under the next Conservative Government. Meanwhile, we are glad to ​ see that the Home Secretary recognises the importance of the law and order issue, not always with quite the support from behind him that one would like to see. We shall back his constructive efforts.

    The second preliminary point that I want to make is addressed to those who believe strongly and sincerely in penal reform, and who in a sense have had all the running in the past 20 years in our penal policy. The impulse for penal reform is a very fine thing, of course, but unless and until society is more reassured than it is now that violence is being con tamed and dealt with, and particularly violence by violent young people, believe that it will be virtually impossible to carry forward sensible penal reform or to tackle prison overcrowding, which the Home Secretary mentioned.

    We believe that the public are entitled to more protection than they have had and even than they are now getting, and that vigorous action is required at all stages in the cycle of crime control and the system of criminal justice. It is not good enough to react to crises as they develop or to blame each development on nameless forces. There is a need for action at every stage in the process of administering the law, right from policing and prevention at one end through the whole problem of the powers and procedures of the courts, up to the structure of punishment and penalties and the organisation of penal institutions at the other end.

    We recognise that that is an enormous programme. It will demand the calling out of major resources of energy. It is not correct to say that we are doing all we can, as has been suggested. Without a doubt there is much more to be done, and it should be done.

    I come to some of the areas that the Home Secretary touched upon, beginning with policing and crime prevention. As I said, we strongly welcome the Edmund Davies conclusions. We on the Conservative Benches are convinced that it would have been much better to pay the increase all at once and not to have phased it. There we are echoing the conclusions of the report, which made it quite clear in paragraph 206 that that was what the committee recommended.

    Clearly, what the Home Secretary says about recruitment is welcome. I should ​ like to know how that spreads over the regions. Is the increase only in London, where there is the additional London weighting, or can the right hon. Gentleman tell us good news all over the country? Are the resignation rates really down? Has the bleeding stopped? That is the real problem—not just raising the number of recruits by increasing pay rates, but stopping the experienced men going. Can the right hon. Gentleman bring us good news about that?

    We have always said, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, that those questions are vital, but they are not the only questions when it comes to improving policing. There is, first, the whole problem of easing the administrative burden on the police. I was interested to see in the Edmund-Davies report a list of no fewer than 98 laws passed since 1960 by this House that have added to the administrative and paper work falling on the police. It must be possible to reduce some of the enormous administrative burden and to release more manpower and womanpower for policing on the beat and in the housing estates. I am sure that there are gains to be made here.

    Then there is the question of traffic. Over the past 10 years there has been an increase in traffic offences—not just parking tickets, but offences involving the police—from about 1½ million to well over 2½ million. It must be right to consider the idea of simplifying the traffic laws and of having ticket offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has said a certain amount about that in recent days. It is an area to which the Home Office and the right hon. Gentleman should be applying their minds.

    That is the first point—the burden must be eased to release more manpower so that it can go on the beat. The second need, which the Home Secretary touched on, is to encourage the public to be not only law-abiding but law-assisting. That means a number of things.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred to co-operation with the schools, and the Home Secretary added to her point. It is a very valuable one. It is not merely a question of expecting chief ​ constables and police forces to make the first approach. I should like to see the education authorities suggest that it would be a good idea to welcome the police into the schools, for two reasons. One is that there could perhaps be fitted into the curriculum some basic and interesting tuition on how the legal system works and how the system of criminal justice operates. The second is that the school authorities and police authorities in a particular locality could keep closely in touch and that in general the police in the locality could have the firm support of the school authorities, local trades people, local public service officials and all the rest.

    I think and hope that the Home Secretary recognises that the need is to give the police firm and unstinted support. But that applies not only at the local level, in the village, in the street, in the city centre, but all the way up—in Whitehall as much as at the town hall and in the village. I am not saying that we want, and we would certainly be against, any development towards a national police force. But it is disturbing to find that it is clear that some chief constables—they are the people who have to run the police forces—feel and give expression to a lack of support from the top and from Whitehall. I believe that improvements could be made in co-ordination and in the regular contact that those with the difficult job of managing our police forces have with Whitehall and with Ministers.

    Mr. Merlyn Rees

    I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me. Can he tell me which chief constable said that? I have met the chief constables recently, and they have not put that matter to me.

    Mr. Howell

    I shall certainly provide the Home Secretary with a number of comments, both published and in papers circulated to hon. Members, about worries expressed by chief constables that they are not receiving enough support from the Government and the highest authorities. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman asked me about this, because a number of these matters have been published in the press. There is a great deal of worry that Ministers have not been showing sufficient support for the forces of law and order, [HON. MEMBERS: “Where”?] If hon. Members want ​ examples, they know them. They do not need to ask.

    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)

    Name one.

    Mr. Howell

    Perhaps the Minister of State remembers that some of his Cabinet colleagues went on the picket lines at Grunwick.

    I have said that I shall provide the Home Secretary with details—

    Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not sufficient for him to give this important information to my right hon. Friend? He should give it to the House. He has suggested to the House that the information is available. We suggest to him that he should present it to the House now.

    Mr. Howell

    I have made it clear that a number of chief constables have expressed their worries about the lack of support from on high for the forces of law and order. I shall certainly provide details to the Home Secretary. I am very willing to do that, and there is no problem about doing so. What is more, hon. Members know that this view is quite widespread.

    From the problem of policing, I now move one stage along the cycle of law enforcement to the area of arrest and police interrogation, which is a very difficult one.

    I do not agree with all that Sir Robert Mark, the former Commissioner, has had to say recently. But I thought that he was hitting the nail on the head when he wrote the following in his book:

    “The surest and quickest way to reduce crime and to achieve a more humane and enlightened penal system is to increase the likelihood that the guilty will be convicted.”

    I think that that is profoundly true. I know that these are matters at which the Royal Commission is looking. But this matter has been debated for a very long time, as the Home Secretary knows. In 1972 the Criminal Law Revision Committee, under Lord Justice Edmund-Davies, as he was then, recommended that

    “adverse inferences may be properly drawn from the silence of the accused”

    —a matter about which the police are very concerned. I do not know when the Royal Commission will reach its conclusion—I hope that it is soon—but on the present time scale it could be as late as 1982 before much begins to happen in this area.

    Let us at least agree that the Royal Commission needs to get on with its work with all speed, because these matters have been debated for a very long time and they are very important in the campaign against crime.

    I come next to the courts and their powers. Here the Opposition have a straight disagreement with the Home Secretary.

    The right hon. Gentleman now believes that the powers of the courts are adequate. I have tried to check this, but I think that he said it last to the Bromley Rotarians. On that occasion he said precisely that. His words were:

    “Some people think the powers of the courts are inadequate to deal with crime. I do not believe this to be true.”

    So he is now satisfied that the courts have all the powers that they need. The Opposition disagree with that view, especially in the case of juvenile courts, but also in one respect for the courts generally and for the Crown courts. I deal first with the juvenile courts. We in this House have all seen enough of the Children and Young Persons Act, which has been in partial operation since 1971, to realise that it is profoundly unsatisfactory to magistrates and social workers alike. The Opposition’s belief is that magistrates should have restored to them the power to make secure care orders, both when making care orders and when renewing them. In our view, it is unsatisfactory that at present the juvenile courts have no say in how care orders are discharged. It is true that under the Criminal Law Act 1977 they can attach some conditions to supervision orders, but in the case of care orders they have no say. We think that that is wrong and that it would be desirable for magistrates to be able to make care orders specifying secure accommodation.

    Of course, it is obvious that that means more places for secure accommodation. As I understand it, there are now only 223 places—[Interruption.] That was the information supplied in a parliamentary Answer which one of my hon. Friends received in July. Another 217 are being built, but there are only 223 now.

    Mr. Merlyn Rees

    July was four months ago.

    Mr. Howell

    Presumably more have come into operation. That is progress. But clearly the need is for more secure accommodation. If we do not have it and magistrates feel that a care order cannot be under the control of the courts, it leads to overloading of detention centres, and I am not sure that that is a healthy development. Certainly I shall have a great deal more to say in a moment about the results of what is happening in detention centres.

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk

    I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, and it is one which is expressed on both sides of the House and outside it. However, there is no point in giving magistrates or courts powers to make secure care orders unless and until the facilities to hold juveniles are built. The hon. Member will know that that is not a criticism of the philosophy of the Children and Young Persons Act. It is in fact an indictment of successive Governments of both parties for not providing sufficient resources to build community homes and the secure units in community homes to hold these children.

    Unless and until it is done, no amount of additional powers given to magistrates will remedy this very difficult problem.

    Mr. Howell

    I am not sure that the hon. Member is right, although I know that he follows these matters very closely. It is a question of who has the powers. After all, the 1969 Act actually reduced the powers of magistrates and reduced their involvement. It put the social workers in the front line of dealing with juvenile crime and placed on them what in some areas is an impossible load. I think that it is right to start redistributing that load back in favour of the magistrates.

    I now come to detention centres and detention centre orders. Here, too, the Opposition think that the situation is profoundly unsatisfactory. In the case of junior detention centres, the present average sentence comes out at about 42 days —six weeks. It is really three months, but there is almost automatic remission so that it is about 42 days. We think that six weeks is a useless length. In some senses it is too short, in others it is too long.

    Let me explain that. For many youngsters, what is needed is a shorter and sharper sentence, especially for young criminals early in their careers. Anyone in a junior detention centre will explain that six weeks is unnecessarily long in some cases and that it could be much shorter provided that it was sharper. For other youngsters, six weeks is a hopelessly inadequate length of time because there is no time to begin training for a new skill and to build up proper rehabilitation. That is what I mean when I say that it is both too short and too long. It satisfies neither criterion. It does not help in either way. It is clear that change is needed.

    The Opposition do not want to tell the courts their business. That is not our proper role. However, I think that in this area three changes are required and that the Home Secretary should apply his mind to them and, I suggest, move away from the view which he expressed in September that the powers of the courts are adequate to deal with these matters I do not think that they are.

    First, I should like to see the pattern established by which young offenders are sent to detention earlier in their criminal careers. There is nothing more depressing than talking to some of these young people who have committed their fifth, sixth or seventh offence and are veterans of every kind of caution, care order and supervision order. It is much too late then, and the detention centre is doing them no good. They should go earlier. There should be powers vested in magistrates to give shorter and more flexible sentences generally—possibly down to 14 days—and they should be of a more rigorous and sharper kind. Two new centres should be provided for these shorter sentences to be served. The Opposition think that that is a development worth trying, and we regret the attitude so far—it may change; we have managed to get the Home Secretary to change his mind—that this is not a serious proposal or a serious intention. It is.

    We believe that it could be tried, that it would get the support of some of the staff, and that above all it is greatly preferable to waiting until young thugs become totally iured and hardened veterans of endless care orders and are sent to overcrowded detention centres, often arriving at the gates ​ without adequate documentation, when it is really too late.

    Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the same concept of the short, sharp early prison shock should be applied to adult offenders as well as to juvenile offenders?

    Mr. Howell

    I should like to see the first development in the case of juvenile offenders, but it may be that the same philosophy, which after all was the original philosophy of the detention centres when they were first set up under the 1948 Act, should be applied at the senior level as well. That is the way that the Opposition would like the system now to develop.

    As for the 17 to 21-year-old offenders —my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has just mentioned older offenders—we should like to see senior attendance centres also expanded. We cannot understand the objection of the Home Secretary to this development. He told us last April that 18-year-olds would be admitted to some junior detention centres. He mentioned that again today. But what are the arguments against the expansion of senior attendance centres? We see that as a valuable development, and we should like an explanation of what the Home Office thinks about it.

    We should like to see the repeal of section 3 of the 1961 Criminal Justice Act which restricts sentences for those young offenders who have not already served a sentence to either less than six months or more than three years. I know that there were reasons why it was felt that that restriction was desirable, but we believe that it should be changed. That is another change that we should like to see in the courts’ powers. Our broad aim is to have a fitting range of penalties, which we lack at present, with prison as the final penalty in the range.

    Mr. Rees-Davies

    Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is plenty of room in the senior attendance centres and other places for weekend attenders, particularly as many of the older offenders are in work? Does he not think it would be best if they attended only for the weekends, when they could be directed to do appropriate work?

    Mr. Howell

    I recognise that there are arguments in favour of such a suggestion.

    ​Mr. Eldon Griffiths

    My hon. Friend has made some constructive suggestions. Can he say clearly that it would be his intention to see that any juvenile offender who, while in the care of a local authority, committed a second violent offence must be removed from the care of that local authority and at least be eligible to suffer a more severe penalty?

    Mr. Howell

    My hon. Friend would not expect me to commit myself precisely on that matter. I am sure that his suggestion is worth examining.

    I turn to the question of prisons, which is a topical matter. I have already reminded the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has welcomed the inquiry. It has been set up with such speed that we do not yet know its terms of reference, its chairman or the form that it will take. On Thursday the Home Secretary appeared to indicate that hon. Members would have an opportunity to submit evidence to it. It will be a wide inquiry. I do not know how that will be reconciled with the urgency of it. I should like to know the form of the inquiry as soon as possible. There has been criticism of the Home Secretary and of Ministers for the delay in setting up an inquiry. It is right that we should at least take note of the comments of the distinguished home affairs correspondent of The Times.

    On Friday he wrote:

    “the worsening crisis has not been treated with the urgency it deserves…warnings have not been heeded or they have been dismissed as sensationalism, and action has been delayed until violence has made it impossible for the authorities to ignore it any longer.”

    That quotation is from a reasonably independent source. That is not partisan criticism but is a correspondent making a point which is shared widely outside the House. It is right that I should quote it.

    The Home Secretary cannot say that he was not warned about these matters. We have had the all-party Expenditure Committee’s report on prisons. There was a debate in the House in March 1977. The all-party Committee was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), and the Committee warned about the need for an inquiry into prison conditions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) ​ led the debate in the House. There has been plenty of warning that something needed to be done.

    The inquiry comes at a time when pay disputes and the question of meal times are aggravating the issue. The inquiry will be made no easier as a result. Two separate and equally difficult issues will be mixed—the problems of pay and of the whole organisation of the prison service.

    First, I wish to deal with the question of organisation. The prison officers want a service of their own. They feel that their organisation is lost in the upper reaches of Home Office bureaucracy. In saying that, I make no criticism of existing officials or the director-general of the prison service, whom I know and respect. But the officers are worried because the service is not distinct and its upper echelons are too closely bound in with the departmental processes.

    In some cases there seems to be ill feeling between the prison officer and governor grades. Rigid norms have played havoc with differentials. The Prison Officers’ Association has behaved responsibly. I firmly endorse what the Home Secretary said about that. But it is not in control of all its branches. I am not sure that I go all the way with the Home Secretary’s belief that he and his colleagues have done everything possible to encourage a more coherent approach, at least over the last few years.

    The probable need—the inquiry will have to decide this—is for an autonomous service under a commissioner who is responsible to the Home Secretary. That is my bet on what will come out of the inquiry.

    I turn to the question of overcrowding. I find it difficult to see how the inquiry will be able to deal comprehensively with overcrowding because it extends far beyond the prisons into the whole penal system. We must be careful about bending sentencing arrangements and penal policy to suit the accommodation available. That is the wrong way round.

    The protection of the public must come first. There is a hard core, ruthless element in our prisons from whom society must be protected for a long time. I hope that I am not being too pessimistic ​ when I say that I expect its numbers to rise.

    There is a case for shorter sentences for the lower categories of prisoners. Some of my hon. Friends have produced a useful report entitled “The proper use of prisons.” We believe that it is the first impact that counts. That is a change that should be introduced for its own sake and not a desperate expedient to try to ease the pressure on our prisons. That is the wrong way.

    There are several hundred psychiatric cases who should be in secure hospitals. However, the Home Secretary would say rightly that they must first be built. More places are required in secure mental hospitals.

    There are also a few hundred alcoholics and inadequates. Some might be better treated outside, but we must remember that alcoholics are usually in prison for having committed violent crimes. That must be borne in mind.

    It will take a long time for any of these changes to have any significant impact. There is no avoiding the need to build new prisons. They must be prisons from which it is hard to escape. That is the most expensive type. There is no avoiding the need for a programme which goes beyond the programme of new places built since 1970 or that are in the pipeline. We must face the situation. There is no easy way round by juggling with penal policy.

    I have been speaking about crime itself and the response to it. I make no apology for that. The balance has gone too far towards seeking excuses for crime in deeper and more vague causes. Often one tends to address oneself to anything but crime when dealing with the problems of law and order.

    Wider influences are a vital part of the problem. Many of our troubles begin in the home. There is a need to give parents more support when they are trying to bring up their children in a disciplined manner. Many of the troubles begin in the schools. There should be an all-out campaign for better standards. Many of our troubles come from poor public example by leading figures in authority who might and should know better. I know that this is controversial, but some of our troubles also come from the nightly ​ television message that violence is a good way to settle an argument.

    The need in all these areas is to pursue policies which make it profitable for people and families to think and act responsible rather than policies which constantly take responsibility away and imply that everything will be handled elsewhere at some loftier or official level. This approach that I urge is needed not only in respect of discipline of upbringing and law observance. It extends to policies far outside the traditional Home Office area of preoccupation. It extends to matters such as taxation, education, housing, the social security system and even attitudes to pay bargaining.

    Some will say, and no doubt it will be said in the debate today, that it is impossible in an era of State domination and bureaucratised welfare to move in this new direction. I do not agree. In the past two years there has been a resurgence of public demand in all parts of the country not merely for government to come to grips with lawlessness but for policies which reinforce personal and family responsibility and the standards of conduct upon which a settled society rests. That demand is coming from supporters of all parties. We are receiving the pressure and we recognise it, and in that sense I think that there is a turning point in the public mood.

    In our view, the politicians’ response should be to stop blaming the situation on the media, the Opposition or anyone else and to start giving a vigorous lead from the top on all questions of law and order. Frankly, we do not see that approach from these Ministers. In my view, therefore, the task will fall to the next Conservative Government.

  • Merlyn Rees – 1978 Statement on the Home Office

    Merlyn Rees – 1978 Statement on the Home Office

    Below is the text of the statement made by Merlyn Rees, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1978.

    I understand that the subject for today’s debate is Home Office affairs. The Home Office covers an enormous variety of topics. There is not only the police, the prisons and the criminal law; there is also immigration and race relations, the fire service and broadcasting. There is even more: electoral law, liquor licensing, relations with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and betting and gambling. But I understand that the Opposition intend to place the main weight of their speeches on law and order, and I, too, will be concentrating on this aspect in my speech today—though my hon. Friend the Minister of State—as is always the case in the Home Office—will be ready to deal with anything at the end of the debate.

    Before I come to law and order, however, I want to say something about another major Home Office concern—immigration and race relations. Earlier this year there was a great deal of public discussion on immigration, much of which was sadly misinformed. There was talk of our being swamped—at a time when immigration from the Commonwealth and Pakistan is largely confined to the wives and children of people who are already here. I made the Government’s position clear in my statement to the House on 6th April and again in the White Paper published in July, commenting on the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.

    The Government have three principal aims in immigration. First, we affirm our determination to honour our commitments to the close dependants of those who are settled here. It is only right that wives and children should be enabled to join their husbands settled in this country as quickly as possible.

    The second objective of our immigration policy—bearing in mind the commitment to which I have referred—is to continue with strict limits on future immigration. We are a small and densely populated island. There have to be restrictions on the number of people we can accept. Undoubtedly that has a bearing on the harmony which exists among the people of this country.

    The third objective of the Government is to prevent evasion and abuse of the immigration control. We are determined to take firm action against illegal immigration. The number of prosecutions and convictions for overstaying, the number of illegal entrants removed and the number of people ordered to be deported have, because of the change in 1973, all more than doubled since the last full year of the Conservative Government. We are concerned about this problem. But the recent controversy about immigration numbers has diverted attention from the real problem—that of racial discrimination and racial disadvantage within our society. The Government are committed to equal opportunity for all our people and we will settle for nothing less.

    The Gracious Speech reflects this commitment in the proposals that it makes for the replacement of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. This section made provision for paying a grant to local authorities to meet the special needs of Commonwealth immigrants. It is proving increasingly defective and there is an urgent need to replace it. A consultative document setting out the Government’s proposals is being issued to a wide range of organisations and individuals today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

    The provisions of section 11 would be replaced by a broad enabling provision giving authority for grants to be paid to local authorities in respect of programmes designed (a) to meet the special needs of ​ ethnic minorities, or (b) to promote racial harmony. Local authorities will be encouraged to review systematically and comprehensively the impact of the whole range of services they provide on ethnic minority communities. Comments on the consultative document have been asked for by the end of January 1979. Subject to the outcome of these consultations the Government propose to introduce legislation as soon as possible in the new year.

    The Government recognise that the wider scope of the proposed new grant should be matched by a significant increase in the resources made available for expenditure on ethnic minorities. Details of this increase will be published in the White Paper on public expenditure. This new form of grant-aid will be separate from, and in addition to, the urban programme. There will be close and detailed discussions with local authority associations—not just on the principles of the proposals but on the sort of machinery necessary to advise the Government in the best ways of making use of the grant. The proposals for the new grant envisage that in the course of devising their programmes, and before submitting claims for grant, local authorities would consult the ethnic minority communities in their areas.

    I turn now to the main theme of my speech—law and order—for the preservation of law and order must be the major preoccupation of any Home Secretary and Government. During the summer, many claims were made about the relative rate of increase in crime during various periods. Of course, statistics can be used—out of context—to show that crime has risen faster under this Government—or any other—than under their predecessor—25 per cent. overall in 1974–77, as compared with 6 per cent. in 1970–73.

    But different statistics can be used to prove precisely the opposite. Violence against the person increased by 49 per cent. in 1970–73 compared with 29 per cent. in 1975–77, and criminal damage increased twice as fast in the earlier period under a Conservative Government as in the later one. I fear that, as usual, it depends on what one is trying to prove and on what statistics one wants to use. Innumerate people in public relations and advertising will be able to prove whatever they wish, and what they say will have no bearing whatever on the problem of law and order.

    The truth is that crime has risen relentlessly, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, for over 20 years. During that time there have been only two years, 1967 and 1973—one Labour and one Conservative—when the number of indictable offences recorded has gone down. In recent years the rate of increase, although subject to wide fluctuations, has seemed to be slowing down.

    The 15 per cent. increase of last year must be seen in the context of a 1 per cent. increase in 1976 and 7 per cent. in 1975; while the first two quarters of this year showed increases of 3 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively compared with the same quarters last year. But one quarter’s figures—even one year’s figures—by themselves do not tell the whole story.

    The Government are determined to deal firmly with this rise in crime. One determination, but only one, is reflected in the tougher penalties that were provided in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the greater powers which that Act gave to the courts to deal with younger offenders.

    Since 17th July of this year, magistrates have been able to impose a maximum fine of £1,000 on offenders convicted of theft, burglary, violent offences, criminal damage and many others. The amount of compensation which an offender may be ordered to pay—on summary conviction—has been increased from £400 to £1,000. The Criminal Law Act enables the Home Secretary to increase by order the maximum fine on summary conviction of most serious offences, should this be thought necessary following a change in the value of money.

    The Criminal Law Act strengthens the supervision orders for juveniles. It enables the courts to prescribe additional requirements and contains powers to deal with breaches of any requirement by fines or an attendance centre order. Under the Act, juvenile fines are increased to £50 for the under-14-year-olds and to £200 for the 14 to 16-year-olds.
    Magistrates’ courts have new powers to enforce fines on juveniles. Within that legislation I am glad that we were able to do something for the victims of crime ​ This is an aspect which is of increasing concern to us.

    The Government’s determination to deal effectively with crime is also reflected in the high priority that we have given to spending on law and order, even in times of financial stringency. This year the Government will spend over £2,000 million on law, order and protective services, of which over half is on police.

    In the 1977 public expenditure survey about £50 million a year in real terms was added to previously planned expenditure from 1978–79 onwards. This included a special law and order package of about £9 million announced in November 1977. Additionally, about £5 million was provided for law and order capital expenditure from the construction industry package.

    More recently has come the Budget package of April of this year, which provided about £10 million, of which £5 million was for the police, £2 million for the prisons, £2 million for the courts and £600,000 for the probation services. In real terms we are now spending over £300 million a year more on law, order and protective services than in 1974.

    Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

    Will this expenditure encompass the question of getting the police into the schools for lecture courses as was envisaged in the Scottish recommendations? That seems to be an excellent idea.

    Mr. Rees

    It does seem a good idea, but it is a matter for the chief constable, or the commissioner in London. I know from my visits to police forces in different parts of the country that this sort of thing is done. It is valuable particularly in that it introduces the community constable for an area to the schools, particularly the primary schools.

    I turn to the question of police manpower and premature retirement, which is particularly important. An adequately manned and equipped police service is of central importance in sustaining the fight against crime.

    We made clear in the Gracious Speech that the Government are firmly committed to support strengthening the police. That is why we accepted without hesitation the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies committee on pay.

    We were right to have a deep investigation into Edmund-Davies, giving the very big increases this year. To have given 10 per cent. plus something last year, which would have made people feel that a victory had been achieved, would not have given the deep-seated investigation which was so necessary since the report of 1960.

    What will be the effect of Edmund-Davies? It would be wrong at this moment to be more than cautiously optimistic. There has already been a noticeable effect on wastage rates. The overall rate in the September quarter was 25 per cent. below average. Premature wastage dropped by 17 per cent. and retirements on pension by 37 per cent. As a result, the total strength showed a net gain of 241 in the September quarter, compared with losses of 371 in the June quarter and 31 in the January quarter.

    Metropolitan Police recruitment showed a rise of 27 per cent. above the average for the first six months of the year, and wastage fell by 30 per cent. As a result, the force showed a net gain in strength for the September quarter of 44, compared with losses of 228 in the June quarter and 153 in the March quarter. The strength now stands at 21,675. When I asked in the Metropolitan Police about these figures the other day, it was pointed out to me that it was impossible to show a figure that was meaningful until the end of the year because one must take account of the time it takes people to apply and go for tests.

    The Edmund-Davies committee is now taking evidence on the third part of its inquiry—the rights, duties and conditions of the police representative bodies—and it hopes to submit its report next spring. The Government and the House await the report with interest.

    This Government believe that the most effective way of dealing with crime must lie in improved methods of prevention. It is not enough, as someone has put it, to suppress the bad, although that is important; we must also activate and liberate the good in society. Everyone agrees that there is considerable scope for minimising criminal behaviour through practical steps.

    Vandalism is a good example. I held a conference only last week with a number of interested bodies to investigate the ​ action being taken to tackle vandalism and to exchange information. All kinds of interests were represented—the police, local authorities, people involved in education, planners, architects, and voluntary bodies.

    What clearly emerged from our discussions was that vandalism has to be tackled in the localities where it occurs. The advantage of a conference of this kind is to swap information, and I want to take further steps of circulating information from the local authorities on what is being done in other areas.

    Many groups have a part to play in this. The police, of course, have a primary responsibility for preventing crime. But they need information. Wherever there is vandalism—in a housing estate, in a park, or in a shopping precinct—the police must be told so that their expertise can be used in planning counter-measures. But local action to counter vandalism must be joint action. The police cannot do this job alone. Local authorities have a very important role to play, as do others in the schools and in voluntary bodies. Joint local action has to identify where the vandalism is happening, what is being done, what counter-measures can be taken, how a plan of action must be implemented, and how the results can be monitored.

    Following the conference, I hope that this can be done in three ways—through the police, local authorities, and voluntary bodies. There are some very interesting experiments taking place with the aid of social workers, for example, in Widnes and Wythenshawe, in Manchester. The result of those experiments are very valuable. Because of my responsibility for broadcasting, I am very interested in the possibility of a good local station bringing together people to discuss this matter with very good practical results.

    In my constituency last Saturday I went around a small and fairly new housing estate. It was clear to me that the police were not informed enough about what was going on. One suggestion that I put, which should be looked at, was that a local authority should have a centre in the council offices where people can telephone about the problem of vandalism in their area. There is a lack of ​ knowledge about this and there is sometimes exaggeration about what is going on. In a couple of hours on Saturday evening, when I went around with a police inspector to people’s houses, I found that I, as a constituency Member, had made the beginning of an effort to stimulate interest in these matters. There is no simple solution to the problem; it is a question of responding to local problems with local measures.

    There are those who have suggested particular panaceas, and I should like to look at them. One suggestion is for anti-vandalism patrols. I have checked with the police and they have told me that they already carry out such patrols. But they have also told me that they must decide to do it. Anti-vandalism patrols are a matter for the chief constable. The question of how they use their resources is a matter for them. They must decide these questions in the light of the needs in their own areas.

    In other areas the primary need will not be for such patrols, but for different housing policies or for special efforts in a school. Again on Saturday evening, the children who came up to me made it clear that a lot had been done on the estate but there was no provision for open space.

    Where prevention fails, those responsible for breaking the law must be caught and dealt with appropriately. In some cases there is the problem of penalties, and I should like to take up this point in more detail. Some people say that harsher punishments are needed. It is, of course, entirely right that offenders, whether they be young or old, should receive appropriate punishment for the offences they have committed.

    But I do not think we can afford to underestimate the rigour of the punishment inflicted by a simple act of imprisonment. The very fact of being uprooted from one’s normal life and placed instead in a Prison Department establishment—whether it be a detention centre or a borstal, or a prison—is a shock, and, indeed, a sharp shock. We cannot afford to underestimate that fact. To add to the shock of incarceration a regime that is designed to be oppressive and punitive would, in my view, go beyond the limits of what society would accept as reasonable. I say this, having visited prison ​ establishments recently, because they are not holiday camps or places where life is easy. When people talk about a system that is more oppressive, they do not take into account the existing system.

    We must provide firm discipline in our establishments and I believe that we do, but it would be a mistake to assume that an excessively rigorous discipline for short sentences would be able to overcome the effects of any previous indiscipline in the offender’s life. When I discussed this with the prison staffs they did not agree that it was necessary.

    They said “Look what is happening here already.”

    It is far more profitable, sensible and humane to provide a firm framework of discipline in our young offender establishments and to concentrate on our positive efforts, rather than on adding to the rigorous aspects of the discipline. They are there. We need to add to the offender’s capacity to conduct himself properly in society after his release and I think that not sufficient people know about the positive work done in these establishments through education and industrial training.

    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

    Does the Home Secretary recognise that there has been an increase of more than one-third in criminal damage in the past year and will he pay attention to the paragraph in the report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary that says that many agencies other than the police have a responsibility and a part to play in a concerted effort on a broad front?

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if one could bring in the special constabulary and local volunteers to assist, they might be able to help with the detention of people over the weekend, particularly on Saturday afternoons? This would have a very much better effect than having to incarcerate them in prison. If their efforts were directed towards work over the weekend, it would not interfere—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. This is almost a speech rather than an intervention.

    Mr. Rees

    It is not the view of the police that the hon. and learned Gentleman’s suggestion is the way to do it. I was going to deal with attendance centres.

    There are 70 junior attendance centres and plans are in hand for another 10 or so during the next 12 months. The increase of the past 12 months is a very great achievement. We recognise the arguments for extending the range of these junior attendance centres, though that was not the general advice that I received from those involved when I first looked at the matter.

    Eight of these centres have been extended for an experimental period to take offenders aged 17 and 18 and we shall be studying the experiment carefully to see what lessons it provides. It is important that it should be an experiment. It is far too easy for all of us to say that something should be done. Sometimes we set up something and let it go on for a long period when it is not doing what we originally thought it ought to do.

    Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two original senior attendance centres in Greenwich and Manchester were set up on an experimental basis and ran for years without the Home Office even observing what was going on? Are we to have a repeat of the same thing?

    Mr. Rees

    I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I hope that he will not suggest that what came out of those experiments was clear. The reason why I have authorised the new experiment is that there has been a feeling on both sides of the House that it should be done. I have not set it up in the knowledge that it will be a success. Let us see. People have said that it should be done, so let us see what happens.

    Some people argue that the courts do not have sufficient power to impose effective fines on children whose offences do not merit their being sent to attendance or detention centres. We have already acted on this aspect. The Criminal Law Act 1977 increased maximum fines for children and young persons and provided for parents to be made liable, in certain circumstances, for their children’s fines. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked that this should be done. It is being done under the 1977 Act.

    The courts have new powers to enforce fines, to make attendance centre orders, to require the offender’s parents or guardians to enter into recognisances to ensure ​ payment and, subject to certain safeguards, power to order that any sum remaining unpaid should be transferred to the parents or guardians.

    The Government are concerned about the problem of vandalism, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his message to the vandalism conference last week, unless we can create a caring, sharing society which will make outcasts of vandalism and violence, we shall all, as individuals, be failing our children and jeopardising the future of this country.

    Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that part of the problem, though only a part, is caused by the packs of youngsters who collectively commit violence and attack people, including the police? Has he set in motion any experimental work to examine the role of the gangs, which are often a problem?

    Mr. Rees

    I have spoken to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector about this matter and I know that the police are giving attention to it. There is no doubt that group action is important, but, as I know from correspondence and from what I learned last week, individual action also matters.

    I yield to no one in my concern about the problem of unemployment. I was brought up among unemployment, and those experiences will never leave me. In discussions about law and order, I have found a number of people who have said that they wished that others did not claim that vandalism and violence were caused by unemployment. People who are unemployed are not necessarily those who are involved in these matters. Often it is people with plenty of money who are involved, as is seen in some instances of football hooliganism. I have no doubt that there is a link, but it is not as clear as is sometimes suggested.

    Turning to the prison service, I do not accept that the service is being starved of resources. This year, we are spending £23 million on new construction and £8 million on repairs and maintenance of existing premises. Present plans are expected to produce about 4,500 additional inmate places—to use the jargon —over the next four years, and some improvements to essential services.

    The new big prison will not be started until 1981–82. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and I shared experience of problems in Northern Ireland, though perhaps I had more practical experience of this matter. When I went to the Northern Ireland Office and we were concerned about getting people into prison through the courts and doing away with detention in open prisons, I asked for the plans of new prisons. There were no plans. After obtaining planning permission west of Belfast, we set about building a new prison, based on the new prison that is to be started here in 1981–82, but that prison in Northern Ireland, also, will not be started until 1981–82. Anyone with ideas of building a proper new prison of that nature should know that it takes eight or nine years. In Northern Ireland, we were able to get new buildings put up in the Maze for the short term, but nothing could have been done in the past four years to bring new prisons on to the stocks now. They take time.

    Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

    I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but can he explain why his Government cut £80 million from the prison building programme in 1974–75? This money would have been coming on stream in 1977–78 and 1978–79.

    Mr. Rees

    I am pleased to debate public expenditure and £300 million extra, in real terms, is being spent. We did rather well overall in the Home Office. It is no good Conservative Members calling for cuts in public expenditure and then weeping about them whenever something in particular is affected.

    Mr. Carlisle

    Now answer the question.

    Mr. Rees

    It was cut because every budget had to take a knock. We in the Home Office did better than did other Departments. By the end of 1981–82, total capacity in the prisons is expected to reach 41,700 and the daily average population for that year to be 43,800. On the existing plans, our view is that the level of overcrowding may then be reduced by up to one-third.

    In regard to industrial action in the prison service, members of the Prison Officers’ Association came to see me today, and to say that they were upset is ​ to put it mildly. The action in the prison service is unofficial; it is not being carried out by the POA. Some parts of the press have been talking as if it were the association. Certain people have been flaunted on television and in the press as being important. It has been put to me that this sort of thing does great harm to those working responsibly in these matters.

    I will give the House the position as it was at 11 o’clock this morning. A total of 26 out of 113 prison service establishments are taking industrial action of some kind in pursuit of their claim for continuous duty credits—that is, meal breaks. We must be clear about the situation. A further four establishments are considering their positions. This figure does not include Parkhurst, where staff have been taking industrial action for some time in support of their claim for special allowance. Of the establishments taking action, 14 are located in the South-East region, seven in the South-West region, five in the Midland region, and none in the Northern region.

    There are 13 establishments in which the action being taken in some ways restricts the regime—for example, education classes, industrial training, and so on—and one establishment where prisoners are not being accepted from magistrates’ courts. That establishment is in London. The situation is different in the case of the Crown courts.

    The position is still very fluid, and full information about what is happening and, in particular, about how police holding facilities are likely to be affected will not be available until late this evening. If I learn anything further before close of play today, as it were, my hon. Friend the Minister of State can bring it to the House.

    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)

    On Thursday my right hon. Friend made a statement on the prison officers’ dispute. He said that the action of certain prison officers is clearly illegal in preventing prisoners appearing at court or probation officers, social workers, relatives and lawyers having access to their clients or relatives. He said that this situation “cannot be allowed”. What action is he taking?

    Mr. Rees

    On that matter, can we wait to see what happens today? What is ​ quite clear is that if the disciplinary code were broken action would have to be taken. I have only been able to convey to the House the position as it was at 11 o’clock this morning. It may be different before the evening is out, and I would rather wait to see what the true picture is.

    I turn now to the claim for continuous duty credits—the meal breaks claim. Reference was made to this last Thursday, when I made my statement. It has been suggested in the press that the Prison Department has made an offer to certain branches of the POA which have been taking action. This is completely untrue. I make it clear that on such matters the Prison Department deals only with the national executive committee of the POA and with nobody else. We are in daily contact with the NEC, and I met the chairman and general secretary only this morning.

    They have assured me that the action now being taken by these branches is contrary to the policy of the NEC. The NEC has throughout been acting entirely responsibly in this matter and, as I made clear in my statement last Thursday, it is mainly in consequence of the points put to me by the NEC in recent weeks that the Government decided that an inquiry should be held. It is vital to the prison service that these proper channels of communication with the NEC of the POA should be preserved.

    There has been comment in the press on the question whether the inquiry would cover continuous duty credits. The terms of reference are being discussed with the staff associations, but the POA has already made it clear to me that it will expect this matter to be included in the inquiry’s review of pay and conditions of service, and that retrospection must also be considered in the light of the inquiry on the principle of the matter. I can say now, in advance of the drawing up of the precise terms of reference, that I see no objection to these proposals, and I have so informed the POA.

    It is essential that the inquiry should proceed as fast as possible. I am hoping for a report as early as possible and I shall impress this upon the chairman of the inquiry.

    Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

    I welcome the last remarks of the Secretary ​ of State. Does he appreciate that there is evidence that prison officers in many parts of the country seem to have lost confidence in their association? That is why staff in a number of prisons are carrying out this action. Is he prepared to say, here and now, that the Government will accept the inquiry’s findings on these claims?

    Mr. Rees

    It would be one thing for me to say that I would accept the findings but it would also be necessary for other bodies to say that they would accept the findings. We had better wait until we have the terms of reference.

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk

    How long it is going to take?

    Mr. Rees

    I have said that it will be done as fast as possible.

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk

    Weeks? Months?

    Mr. Rees

    It is a matter of months. I hope that it will not go long into next year.

    The national executive committee of the association is an elected body. That is the case with trade unionism as a whole. [Interruption.] That is not true, but if there are people who feel it to be so they have the remedy in their own hands. The committee is the elected body. The NEC has been responsible and I understand that some of those who appear on television are speaking without the full authority of those in the prisons from which they come.

    In this situation, therefore, it is important that I, and, I believe, the House, should speak up for the POA, with which I have been in contact for some time now about industrial relations and the running of the prisons. It is not part of the wider problem of the prisons. It has made clear to me the particular things that it wants looked at; so have the governors and others.

    Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

    The right hon. Gentleman has had experience of difficulties with firemen, police and now prison officers. Is there not a case for having a permanent independent review body available to look at special cases in the public sector, irrespective of whether the Government have a formal incomes policy?

    ​Mr. Rees

    It is quite surprising how many special cases there are. The hon. Gentleman had better consult his Front Bench, who want a free-for-all on the matter.

    Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border)

    No, we do not.

    Mr. Rees

    The right hon. Gentleman says that they do not, but certain Front Bench speakers go round saying the opposite.

    I turn now to the Official Secrets Act. The Gracious Speech states the Government’s policy. We intend to push ahead with proposals also in the related area of open government. I know that it is very important to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act by an up-to-date provision.

    Broadcasting loomed large in the last Session. We have explained our proposals in the White Paper, and there is the passage in the Gracious Speech. A number of the proposals require detailed discussion with the organisations concerned. Those discussions have already begun and legislation is promised in the Gracious Speech, possibly in the next year. But some of our proposals need not await legislation. The House will have noted the proposals for the expansion of local radio. The stations have been announced, and I hope that, before we come to the General Election towards the end of next year, I shall be able to make an announcement also for further local radio stations.

    The Government recognise the depths of the concern felt at all levels of our society about crime. The Government share that concern. But resources alone will not win the day. There is only one way in this, as there is in aspects of incomes policy or pay policy, or whatever it is called—we will only win through if the people of the country as a whole help. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and I both learnt this lesson in Northern Ireland. Civilised life depends on the support of the community for the forces of law and order.

    The Government give their support to the forces of law and order, and I am sure that the House as a whole does. But over-simplification on the hoardings only means that those involved with preserving law and order laugh and say “Is this ​ what politicians provide?” Such oversimplifications are nonsense. This House supports the forces of law and order in dealing with a very complicated matter.

  • David Ennals – 1978 Statement on the NHS

    David Ennals – 1978 Statement on the NHS

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Ennals, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 2 November 1978.

    I welcome the opportunity of today’s debate on the Gracious Speech to review the state of the National Health Service and to discuss its problems. No public service is held in higher regard than the National Health Service. It has within it men and women of high skill and dedication. None is held in higher esteem than the nurses—and I speak from experience, having had five weeks as a patient in an NHS hospital this summer.

    I believe that much of this respect is due to the basic principles on which the National Health Service is based—namely, a service for everyone, paid for by everyone, free at the point of delivery.

    Today’s debate provides an opportunity for the Government to set out their policies and aims. There is today concern about the state of the NHS. I hope that the Opposition, having chosen this subject, will give the House and the country some straight answers to some straight questions.

    There are three main areas of concern that worry patients, staff and the public generally. First, there is the problem of resources and the priorities for using them. Secondly, there is the bureaucracy in the NHS and the reorganisation carried out by the Conservatives. Thirdly, there are the difficulties over industrial relations ​ and pay, and the alarming effects that industrial action can have in our Health Service.

    I propose to deal with these three areas in turn, starting with resources and priorities. The needs for more cash and more staff in the NHS are plain for all to see. There are increasing demands on the service from growing numbers of elderly people.

    There are new methods of treatment for conditions that would have gone untreated only a few years ago. We have long waiting lists—now sadly longer still. There is a backlog of old, inadequate hospitals and the inheritance of an unfair share-out of health funds and facilities across the country. There are not enough staff, cash or facilities for our geriatric wards or our mental illness hospitals or our hospitals for the mentally handicapped. There is the need to cut still further the number of babies who die at or shortly after birth, and to reduce to a minimum those born handicapped.

    There is also the need for a further improvement in community care, and better primary care, particularly in inner cities. The list could go on. I said at the Labour Party Conference that I had the longest shopping list in the business. I have recognised—I think that we all do—the pressures on the Service, the strain on staff of all kinds, and the suffering of patients who have to wait too long for treatment or face unsatisfactory conditions—let us face it—in some of our hospitals.

    That is why we are planning to spend this year £120 million more in real terms on the NHS than we did last year. The £50 million Budget boost is only now beginning to show results. We have seen the opening of modern new hospitals in, for example, Newcastle, Northampton, Oxford and elsewhere. There has been the recruitment of more staff—especially nurses—and the provision of more resources for the Cinderella services. There is more home dialysis for kidney patients. This is beginning to happen.

    In addition, we have made provision in the Gracious Speech for a scheme of payments for those seriously damaged by vaccination—a problem which has caused great concern in this House over many years. I am proud that it was this Government who responded to that ​ concern. Legislation to cover the scheme of payments will shortly be introduced and will, I hope, have the support of the whole House.

    We are now spending about £8 billion a year on our health and personal social services, an increase from 4·7 per cent. of GNP in 1973 to 5·7 per cent. on the latest available figures. What is more, we are spending this money in accordance with a clear set of priorities, worked out after careful discussion. We are pressing ahead with a steady programme to achieve a fairer share of health funds across the country. That means that while programmes are held back in some regions, particularly in the Thames regions, areas of greatest need in the North, North-West and the East Midlands are seeing very rapid growth. I am sure that that principle is right and should be supported by the House.

    We are giving the Cinderella services for the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill a higher priority.

    The House will know that during the recess there have been two important developments in these areas. First, the Government published a White Paper on our review of the Mental Health Act in which we propose new safeguards in the treatment and detention of mental patients and other reforms. Secondly, the National Development Group reported to me on “Helping Mentally Handicapped People in Hospital”, and I have made a statement setting out the Government’s proposals for further improving the quality of care for the mentally handicapped.

    The Cinderella services and geographical redistribution of funds are two of our key priorities. A third is a shift towards prevention. My hon. Friend will have more to say on this subject, especially in relation to perinatal mortality. I hope soon to announce some further initiatives, building on the much improved figures for perinatal mortality of the past few years.

    The Gracious Speech stated:

    “Fresh support will be given to enable the National Health Service to fulfil and extend its services to the public.”

    The Government have a firm commitment to strengthen and develop our National Health Service. We have made it plain that, as the economy improves, it will be possible to devote more resources ​ to the services. We have given practical effect to that commitment twice in the past year, in the November and April measures.

    The House will, of course, have to await announcements at the appropriate time on the Government’s plans for public spending in the period ahead, but there will be an increase in resources available for 1979–80, compared with figures in the last White Paper. It will give us some more room for manoeuvre and will, I am sure, be warmly welcomed in the country, especially by those working in the Service.

    We shall stick to our agreed priorities, and I hope to announce additional resources to help meet the needs of the elderly, to assist mentally-handicapped children, to assist disadvantaged groups, particularly in areas of high mortality, and to make some contribution to the assault on the long waiting lists.

    I have set out the Government’s priorities on resources and the way in which they will spend them. The House and the country will also wish to know where the Conservative Opposition stand. Let us start with the issue of spending on the Health Service. A few months ago, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was quite clear. He said that a Conservative Government would adopt the projections in last February’s White Paper on public expenditure. His actual words were

    “We have to live within that, and there is no possibility of extra money.”

    What could be plainer than that? And that was after the Budget injection of £50 million. He was saying that under a Tory Government there would not have been that £50 million boost and there would not be any further increases beyond the figures in the White Paper.

    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that that is the dismal prospect facing the NHS if the Tories, by misadventure, were to be returned to power. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) doubts that, his right hon. Friend will have an opportunity of dissociating himself from his own quoted statement.

    The subject of resources raises, I believe, two further issues—charges and the Tory plan to shift to an insurance ​ basis of finance. When we last debated the National Health Service in this House, I put a number of questions to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. He refused absolutely to answer them. So, having got no way at all with the monkey, I went to the organ-grinder. In order not to confuse the public and the House about who really is the Leader of the Opposition, I should explain that when I use the term “organ-grinder”, I do not mean the organist. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and not to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In any event, I got no reply. So I shall put the questions again, and give the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford the chance to answer them.

    How much would a Tory Government put on the prescription charge? Will the Tories introduce a new charge for seeing a GP? If so, how much? Will they bring in so-called hotel charges for staying in hospital? If so, how much? Will they bring in a new insurance-based system of finance? If so, will there be different levels of service for different levels of premium, and will there be separate premiums for each member of the family, with extra to pay for the children? When will the Tories publish the Vaughan report on charges? We have had a lot of open government. It is about time we had a little open opposition.

    These are fair questions. I warn the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford that he cannot get away—as he did once before—with saying “We are waiting for the views of the Royal Commission.” He is quite happy to tell us in detail what he wants to do about the organisational structure of the NHS without waiting for the Royal Commission—and that is purely technical matter. This is a matter of deep principle. He does not need the Royal Commission to tell him where his principles lie—or I hope he does not. Let us see what he has to say.

    While he is about it, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will spell out where the Conservative Party stands on the issue of queue-jumping. Where does it stand on common waiting lists for private and NHS patients in NHS hospitals? The Government’s position is plain. While pay beds are being phased out, we believe ​ that those who pay should not be able to jump the queue for treatment. That is why I made proposals in the summer for the implementation of common waiting lists. The hon. Member for Reading, South leapt up and sharply criticised this policy. The issue is all the more important since, as we understand, the Tories want to bring back more pay beds. So I ask the question today: do the Tories support common waiting lists, or are they now openly in favour of queue-jumping? I hope we shall hear an answer to that question from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.

    I also hope that, instead of carping criticism, we shall get from the Opposition some recognition of what has been achieved by this Government and those who work in the Health Service. The fact is that, in spite of all the difficulties and the financial restraints, we have more and more staff treating more and more patients. The facts speak for themselves. I am comparing the position in 1977 with that in 1973, the last full year of the Tory Administration. The number of inpatients treated is up by 213,000 to 5,345,000—an all-time record. The number of day-patients is up by 123,000 to 532,000—again a record. The number of medical staff is up by 14 per cent. The number of nurses and midwives is up by 12 per cent.

    In spite of these achievements, waiting lists remain very long, with all the pain and the suffering that means for patients. This is one of the many problems we face in the National Health Service. We have a great deal still to do. But let us take a balanced view and recognise not only the tasks ahead but the real achievements of the many dedicated people who work in the Service.

    I have dealt with the first area of public concern: resources and priorities. I turn now more briefly to the second: the organisation and structure of the National Health Service.

    There is no disguising the very widespread concern over the reorganisation that the Conservatives foisted on the Service four years ago. The public believe—no one doubts it—that there is too much bureaucracy, that the machine is insensitive to the needs of patients and staff and, perhaps especially, that decisions are sometimes taken too far away from the patients themselves.

    I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes to wax eloquent on this last point—he makes speech after speech—but it is a little difficult to take seriously what he and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) have to say on this matter. Somehow or other they talk as if they had no responsibility for it at all, as if somehow the situation that they are graphically describing is the responsibility of the Labour Government. But they are responsible for it—they and they alone. It was their pet scheme and it was vigorously opposed by Labour when we were in opposition. We knew that they had it wrong. But now they are coming forward with yet another Tory blueprint. The right hon. Gentleman’s party is coming forward with a new blueprint for the reorganisation of the NHS. I ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, would buy a second-hand reorganisation from the men who planted the first one upon us.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech to the Labour Party conference, made clear that this Government intend to make decision-making more democratic in a number of spheres of life. In the light of the views of the Royal Commission on the NHS, we are determined to make the Health Service more responsive both to those who use it and to those who work in it. As the Prime Minister made clear, we shall not take major steps on this before we have had a chance to consider the views of the Royal Commission that will be reporting to us early next year.

    This is in stark contrast to right hon. Members on the Opposition side. They are so embarrassed by what they have done that they are falling over themselves to suggest new remedies. I believe that in their haste they seem to be seeking to impose yet another rigid, ill-thought-out pattern upon the Service. Frankenstein may be dissatisfied with his first monster so he is helpfully making another. Let the public be warned.

    Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

    Is it not a fact that one result of the dreadful structure which has been imposed by the present Opposition on the Health Service is not only bureaucracy and administrative waste but the diversion of too many resources from patient care to administration? Ought we not to be seeking some reorganisation which will put more of ​ the money which goes into the Health Service into patient care?

    Mr. Ennals

    That is absolutely right. Until we can carry out the changes that we need—because the burden of bureaucracy must be reduced—we have to see what we can do right now. I advise right hon. Gentlemen that we are first cutting down on management costs which, as my hon. Friend said, result directly from the reorganisation for which they were responsible. In the past two and a half years we have cut out nearly 3,000 administrative posts and at the same time we have seen the number of doctors and nurses increasing. As a result, this year we have been able to release about £13 million for patient care. In a sense, this is a form of organic change. As for districts, we are also looking at the structure at local level to see how we can meet local needs. I have already given approval for four area reorganisations and there are several others in the pipeline. We are making savings on fuel, supplies, drug costs and the rest. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are the issues on which we are concentrating.

    That brings me to the third and final area of concern for the Health Service—the problems of industrial relations, pay disputes and industrial action. That is perhaps the most immediate area of concern for the public generally. In fact, the last time this House debated the National Health Service—it was at a time when I was in hospital and could not be here—it was about industrial relations in the Service.

    As patients see only too clearly, the real damage that can be caused by industrial action is the lengthening waiting lists, postponed operations, real problems for staff morale and all the rest. It is in times of internal conflict that the NHS sometimes gives the appearance of having too many warring factions rather than being a united team. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford will understand what I mean by that. The difficulties are enormous.

    There are no easy answers to problems of pay. Many other disputes can blow up, and they blow up locally. We have all been greatly alarmed by the recent works supervisors’ dispute and by ​ troubles in particular hospitals. There may be more difficulties ahead as we enter the pay bargaining season.

    What judgment can we pass on the use of industrial action in the National Health Service? In 1973 it was the ancillaries who used it, in 1975 it was the doctors, and in 1978 the works supervisors. Some people have attacked industrial action within the NHS as part of a general attack upon the trade unions. That is absolutely unfair.

    I pay tribute to the commitment of the leaders of the Health Service unions to the Service and the interests of patients.

    Can we—as some people suggest—impose a requirement that because they work in the Health Service they should forswear the normal rights of trade unionists? I believe that that would be unrealistic. Most organisations—and I suspect that they include the British Medical Association—would not agree to have their hands tied. Of the three areas of concern being discussed today, I think that this is the one in which Tory hypocrisy is at its worst.

    Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Before the right hon. Gentleman continues his attacks, may I say that the vast majority of people who work in the Health Service at all levels hate the idea of strikes against patients? They do not like it any more than we do.

    Would the right hon. Gentleman consider at least what was done in the recent police pay settlement, when the police agreed to continue to give up the right to strike but were compensated by an inflation-indexed pay increase and machinery to maintain it? Large numbers of doctors and nurses and other members of the National Health Service have written to me saying that they would like such a deal to be tried out in the Service.

    Mr. Ennals

    I suppose that many people would say that they were prepared to make some sacrifices if they were given 25 per cent. extra pay. I can see that prospect winning a battle across the country.

    I want to come on to the inflationary consequences, because we cannot totally exclude the National Health Service from this Government’s battle against inflation, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think we can. I believe that those who ​ choose to work in the NHS have a very special responsibility to those they serve and to sick people. A hospital is not like a factory complex. Human health and lives are at stake. It cannot be right to put human lives at risk and to cause suffering as an indication of industrial muscle. We must find a better way. We must get our procedures right. We owe it to the Health Service workers and to the patients. Let us look at what we can do in a serious way.

    I believe that there are two distinct problems. First, there is the question of pay and conditions of service, matters dealt with in the Whitley Council machinery. Secondly, there are the disputes that blow up locally—rows about the duty roster, the level of staffing on a ward, where someone parks his bicycle, or a clash of personalities. If they are not tackled, these problems fester and eventually erupt into industrial action, with all that it involves for patients, and all the publicity and effect upon morale.

    That is why earlier this year I brought together round my table the general secretaries of the main Health Service unions, the chairman and secretary of the British Medical Association council, the chairman of the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and the secretaries of the Royal Colleges of Nursing and of Midwives, together with a representative of the Trades Union Congress and a representative of management. It was the first time that such a meeting had ever taken place in the lifetime of the National Health Service. As a result, I was able to put forward concrete proposals only last week for a new disputes procedure in the National Health Service. This up-to-date procedure is designed to settle disputes quickly at the local level where they arise. The general Whitley Council is now considering these proposals, and I hope that it will embody the essential features in an agreement that can be put into effect as soon as possible throughout the NHS.

    This is a practical down-to-earth initiative that I hope will cut to a minimum the number of avoidable local disputes. I was impressed by the extent to which the leaders of the professions and the unions came together and hammered out something that they could all support.

    ​The Opposition are always quick to criticise whenever they see the chance, but let us remember that when they had responsibility for these matters, they did absolutely nothing. Now they draw on their great reservoir of imagination and come up with fanciful ideas of a patients’ charter. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford will tell us about it. It sounds good. What does it mean? How will it work? I hope that it is more sensible than the right hon. Gentleman’s best known proposal that we should brush our teeth in the dark. At least I can understand that, and perhaps he will enable me to understand his ideas for improving industrial relations in the National Health Service. We are talking about industrial disputes. The Opposition’s attitude to disputes about pay is equally unconstructive. They did nothing to be proud of when they were in office, but they are quick to make capital out of any difficulties that we have.

    Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury) rose—

    Mr. Ennals

    I would have preferred to give way later to the hon. Gentleman. However, as I know he takes a great interest in this matter, I shall give way now.

    Mr. Crouch

    I wish to intervene only on the matter of pay policy. The Secretary of State told us that he had a meeting recently when he called together the representatives of the responsible trade unions operating in the Health Service. Do they appreciate that not only do they operate under the Cabinet’s pay policy so strongly advocated by the Prime Minister, but they also operate under the cash limits that fall on his Department? If they take more than the pay policy limits allow, it will be a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Did he make that clear to them?

    Mr. Ennals

    The conference that produced this initiative on local disputes was dealing specifically with non-Whitley-Council-type disputes. I believe that there may be merit in inviting the same group of people to meet to see whether we can improve methods of dealing with the types of disputes that affect Whitley Council ​ issues. I shall cone to the main issue—the question of the supervisors—in a moment.

    In the case that we have been discussing, the machinery is not the real issue. The real issue is what sort of pay rises various groups of NHS staff are seeking and what they can be given. Here, not only the question of cash limits but the question of pay policy is crucial.

    I must comment briefly on two recent matters of concern—the supervisors’ dispute and the worries expressed about the pay and morale of nurses. I deal first with the dispute.

    I have no doubt that the House will have shared my great anxiety about the effect of the recent dispute on waiting lists and the very real risk to patients. Happily, a settlement has been reached with the help of the good offices of the general secretary of the TUC—and the House will, I know, be grateful to Mr. Len Murray for his most helpful initiative.

    I have no wish to rake over the coals. But there have been suggestions that this dispute could have been settled weeks earlier if Ministers had wished, suggestions that the issue had nothing to do with pay policy, and suggestions that the Government finally accepted a deal that I had said earlier was not on. All these suggestions are false.

    Ministers intervened on a number of occasions in efforts to settle the dispute. It was at my request that ACAS made an attempt to conciliate after talks had broken down. What was really being suggested by some critics of the Government was that we should simply have given the staff concerned all that they were demanding—regardless of pay policy and regardless of cash limits and the consequences for other groups of staff. It was a sure recipe for further disputes and further industrial action in the NHS. Pay up and hang the consequences seemed at one stage to have been the attitude of the hon. Member for Reading, South in a statement that he made. No doubt he or his right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford will tell us the purpose of his intervention at that time, if that was not it. I suppose that is what he wanted.

    Mr. Doug Hoyle (Nelson and Colne)

    Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this dispute was not connected with pay policy but was a hangover from the reorganisation that should have been settled much earlier?

    Mr. Ennals

    No. Let me spell it out. It is most important that the House should understand. Of course it was not a straight issue of whether the pay claim was above 5 per cent. This dispute was not about annual pay settlements. It was about a genuine regrading of staff.

    There were two very important issues of pay policy. First, the Government had to be satisfied that the new salaries offered for the new posts were commensurate with the job descriptions. On this basis, we approved the salary scales that had been offered by the management side several weeks before. The rejection of that management offer was the start of the supervisors’ action. Happily, six weeks later, after the disruption in the Service, they accepted precisely the same salary scales that they had rejected.

    Secondly, we had to be satisfied that any improvements to the supervisors’ productivity allowances were genuinely self-financing. That condition is met in the agreement reached last wek. Bonus payments are clearly subject to the financial viability of the scheme.

    During the negotiations, the staff side was demanding a minimum—I repeat minimum, because it was from 15 per cent. up to 30 per cent.—of 15 per cent. allowances for all supervisors regardless of whether they were involved in productivity schemes and regardless of whether the schemes were saving enough money to cover the costs. I said that that was not on. Productivity deals must be genuinely self-financing. I have stuck to that position. The agreement reached last week is entirely consistent with it. The 15 per cent. allowances provided for will not be an unconditional minimum available to all, regardless of membership of schemes and their viability. All supervisors will now have the opportunity to participate in schemes, but the allowances paid, which we hope may reach 15 per cent. six months after schemes are initiated locally, will depend upon the financial viability of the schemes. That is the crucial point. I am glad that the unions were able to ​ accept it. Until they did, no settlement was possible.

    The other subject that I have to mention is the morale and pay of nurses. I recognise the great pressure that nursing staffs are under, particularly during industrial action by other groups when, in a sense, nurses have to pick up the tabs and carry on seeing that patients are cared for. I think that the House will join me today in expressing the country’s deep feeling of thanks to the nurses and to other staff who did so much to maintain the services during that very difficult and, I believe, tragic period.

    Nurses are under stress for many other reasons. There has been a steady increase in the number of nurses working in the National Health Service. It has doubled in 30 years. There has been an increase in the proportion of trained nurses. But they are under very great pressure. I know that from my own experience in hospital. The number of patients increases, the period that an in-patient stays declines, and inevitably the amount of attention that each patient needs increases. As more patients are elderly, they make heavier demands upon the nurses. The nurses need to master new skills.

    I am very glad that we have managed to include in the legislative programme a Bill to establish a new, unified structure for the regulation, discipline, education and training of nurses, midwives and health visitors. This structure will comprise a United Kingdom central council and four national boards, one for each country of the United Kingdom, with supporting specialist committees which will replace the existing statutory and non-statutory bodies. For heaven’s sake, the nurses have been waiting for a long time for this.

    Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

    Since 1972.

    Mr. Ennals

    We can go back to 1974 at least, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) announced the Government’s acceptance of the main recommendations of the Briggs report.

    I am pleased to say that we can now start moving forward. I know that many nurses will welcome this, but that they ​ will also say that their pay has fallen behind. They have asked me to look at their position in the light of the “special case” provisions in the White Paper. The question of nurses’ pay is one that will have to be looked at by the Government in the light of our declared policy on pay as set out in the White Paper.

    I hope that Conservative Members will not seek to make capital out of this matter. With their record on nurses’ pay, they have nothing to be proud of. What did they ever do about it when they had the chance? It was a Labour Government who raised nurses’ pay by 20 per cent. in 1970—I know because I was a Minister in the Department at that time—and it was a Labour Government who gave nurses a further boost of 30 per cent. in 1974 following the Halsbury report. And what happened between 1970 and 1974? Nothing—because we had a Tory Government.

    In the months ahead we face many difficult problems over pay in the National Health Service. I hope that they can be resolved without industrial action. As I have said. I deplore any industrial action in the NHS that puts patients at risk. I hope to explore, with leaders of the profession and the unions, what scope there is for avoiding such action in relation to pay disputes. But to those who say that industrial action in the Health Service must be avoided simply by giving in to whatever demands are made, I give this reply. Of course we must see, within the scope of what is economically possible, that justice is done to the staff. But merely to give in to all demands is the road to anarchy, in the Health Service itself and in the wider pay context.

    I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. This Government are not prepared to take that road. Here we see one of the great divides that is opening up in British politics today. The Conservative Party is taking up a series of extreme positions, on the NHS and on the economy. After 30 years of bipartisan approach to the principles behind the NHS, the Tories seem to be showing their true colours. They seem ready to tax the sick with new and heavier charges.

    Dr. Gerard Vaughan (Reading, South)

    Rubbish.

    ​Mr. Ennals

    I am glad. In that case the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that it is rubbish and that that part of the Tory programme has been set aside. That will be a great relief for the whole country. I shall see whether we can get some more cries of “Rubbish.” The Tories are committed to a two-tier Health Service. No “Rubbish”? We shall see. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East seems to know what it is, because he has been putting forward the idea himself, as have the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford and the hon. Member for Reading, South. They do not know what it means. Perhaps they cannot spell it out; perhaps they do not understand their own proposals. But the moment will come in a minute for the right hon. Gentleman to explain.

    The Tories are committed to massive cuts in public spending which cannot fail to hit the health and personal social services. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will speak of that. They are also in favour of a free-for-all approach to wages, which would send inflation through the roof. If they restrain pay at all, it will be in the public sector only, so that nurses and other Health Service workers will again have to bear the brunt of rising prices. That is the Tory prescription, not only for the economy of the country but for the National Health Service. The contrast between the positive achievements and the positive programme, of this Government and what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have to offer is patently obvious.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2020.

    I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for making the arrangements for us to be able to participate in these circumstances. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

    My thoughts are with all those who have lost their lives to this horrific virus. I pay tribute to the NHS staff who have lost their lives. I hope that, when this is over, we can find an appropriate way to remember the frontline NHS staff who gave their lives for all of us. May we also remember those social care staff who have also lost their lives? Will the Secretary of State tell us the actual number of social care staff who have sadly died? The First Secretary did not have those figures at his fingertips a few moments ago.​

    It looks like we are heading for one the worst death rates in Europe. The Government have been careful to always say that they are following scientific advice. Will the Secretary of State tell us the explanation from the Government’s scientists for why our death rate seems so poor when compared with Germany’s, for example? Will he undertake to publish the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ minutes, which have not been published? Will he also undertake to publish the evidence on why we are following a seven-day rule for isolation? That appears to contradict the World Health Organisation, which suggests a 14-day rule for isolation.

    As the virus develops, we see that, while it attacks the respiratory system, it also attacks cells throughout the body with ACE2 receptors, leading to cardiovascular and renal failure. In the same way that the Secretary of State can convene SAGE and other committees, will he convene the clinical societies so that we can share understanding of the disease among clinicians regarding how best to treat the disease as research emerges?

    I am sure that the Secretary of State is struck, as I am, by the high proportion of deaths among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. We see that in the United States, too. He has launched an inquiry. Will he update the House on that and tell us when it will report?

    I am sure the Secretary of State is as horrified as I am by the deaths in care homes and nursing homes. This was always a high-risk sector, which is why we have long called for a social care strategy. Will he undertake to do four things? Will he ensure that all deaths are recorded on a daily basis?

    The CQC suggested today that the death rate in care homes is double what was reported by the ONS yesterday. Can he ensure that testing for staff is delivered in care homes at local NHS sites or by mobile units? It is clearly ludicrous to expect care workers to travel for miles and miles to drive-through testing centres. Can he ensure that PPE supply systems for the NHS are expanded to the social care sector as well? The Secretary of State said in the past that the NHS will get whatever it takes. Will the social care sector now get funding to cover the huge costs that it is facing, which are associated with increased staffing levels and PPE? I join him in praising the leadership of the NHS for what it has done.

    The Secretary of State gave us the critical care figures. How many general and acute beds are currently empty in the NHS? If there are significant numbers of empty beds, could they be used for social care residents, or to start a return to elective surgery? We know that the lockdown is having an impact on people’s wider health. Cancer patients are going without treatment, and we know that elective waiting lists will rise. Can he tell us the latest estimates how high he thinks those lists will rise? There are also bound to be mental health problems associated with the lockdown.

    Many people are understandably angry that front-line staff do not seem to be getting PPE on time, and we do not seem to have taken part in some of the European procurement projects. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that was because we missed an email. The Secretary of State said that we are now part of that project, but that prompts the question of why we were not part of it at the beginning. The senior civil servant at the Foreign Office said it was a political decision. ​Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what went on? Will he publish the background briefing so that we can see exactly what happened?

    Finally, I agree that testing and contact tracing are vital to coming out of a lockdown. The Secretary of State talked about wanting to upscale contact tracing, but that is very labour-intensive. Can we use the 750,000 volunteers who have signed up to do some of that contact tracing? The app that he mentioned is welcome. When will it be available? Is he proposing that it will be mandatory, or will it be voluntary? If it is voluntary, how will we ensure that it is taken up by the population? Will he comment on reports today that the PCR test, which has been used for some NHS staff, returned false results and that those staff had to be tested again? How many people have been affected by that? What is now in place to ensure that that does not happen again? If the Secretary of State cannot answer all those points today, I hope that he will write to me with the details at a later point.

  • Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Matt Hancock – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2020.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus.

    First, may I say how pleased I am that the House is sitting once again? At this important time, it is critical that we have the scrutiny and debate that the House provides. I thank everybody who was involved in setting up the new arrangements, which demonstrate that no virus or threat will thwart our democracy.

    Coronavirus continues to spread throughout the world. The latest figures show that 17,337 people have sadly died here. Our hearts—the hearts of the whole House—go out to their loved ones. I know that across the House we are united in our determination to fight this virus with everything we’ve got; today I want to update the House on each part of our battle plan.

    First, on the resilience of the NHS, I can tell the House that for the first time we now have over 3,000 spare critical care beds in the NHS. That is more than three times more than we had at the start of this crisis. It is thanks to the incredible work of an awful lot of people that we now have this extra spare capacity, even before we include the new Nightingale hospitals. Over the past two weeks, I have been lucky enough to attend, either in person or virtually, the opening of four of these new Nightingales—in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Harrogate—and there are several more to come, all across the UK, including in Belfast, Glasgow, Cardiff, Exeter and Sunderland. These incredible efforts from dedicated staff, supported by our armed forces, mean that our NHS has not at any point been overwhelmed by coronavirus. Some said this would be impossible.

    Today I want to reinforce the message that non-covid NHS services are open for patients: the NHS is there for you if you need advice and treatment. I want to address that message very clearly to those who might be vulnerable to heart attacks or stroke, to parents of young children, to pregnant women and to people with concerns that they may have cancer. I want to emphasise that people with non-coronavirus symptoms must still contact their GP. If you think you need medical help, please contact your GP, either online or by phone, to be assessed. If you need urgent medical advice, use NHS 111 online; if you cannot get online, call 111. And, of course, if something is serious or life-threatening, call 999. If you are told to go to hospital, the place you need to be is in hospital. The NHS is there for you and can provide the very best care if you need it.

    The second part of our battle plan is on supply and working to boost supplies of core equipment. The full weight of the Government is behind this effort. Again, we have brought in the armed forces to help us to meet this demand. This includes ventilators—both purchasing extra stock and increasing the production of new ones. We now have record numbers of ventilators, with 10,700 available for use for patients. This also includes medicines, so that we can make sure everyone has access to the supplies and treatments they need, and of course it ​includes personal protective equipment, too. In normal times, the NHS PPE supply chain supplies 233 hospital trusts. Currently, 58,000 separate health and social care settings are being supplied with PPE, so we are creating a whole new logistics network from scratch, and we have some of the best minds in the country working on this.

    I am grateful to colleagues from the NHS, Public Health England, the Crown Commercial Service, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces—again—the devolved Administrations, territorial offices, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade, because they are all playing their part. Last week, I appointed Lord Deighton, who delivered the Olympics, to a new role in driving forward PPE manufacturing here.

    Since the start of this crisis, we have delivered over 1 billion items of PPE. We are constantly working to improve the delivery system and buying PPE from around the world. We are also working to make more at home, and I would like to thank the UK businesses that have generously come forward with offers to turn their production lines to this national effort. I also thank Members from across the House who have put us in contact with businesses in their constituencies. We are actively engaged with over 1,000 companies who buy from abroad and are working with 159 potential UK manufacturers. We have a rigorous system of verifying the offers that we receive, because not all offers have been credible and it is important to focus on the biggest, most credible offers first. This work is crucial so we can get our NHS and care staff the kit they need so that they can do their job safely and with confidence.

    The third part is to scale up testing. I have set the goal of 100,000 tests a day by the end of this month, and I am delighted to say that the expansion of capacity is ahead of plans, even though demand has thus far been lower than expected. We are therefore ramping up the availability of this testing, expanding who is eligible for testing and making it easier to access the tests. The tests are conducted in NHS hospitals, and through our drive-through centres, mobile units and home deliveries. These tests are then sent to laboratories. We have completed the construction of three Lighthouse Labs in Milton Keynes, Glasgow and Cheshire. Each site took just three weeks to complete and begin testing.

    As we have reached the peak and as we bring the number of new cases down, we will introduce contact tracing at large scale. The introduction of the new NHS app for contact tracing is also in development. As we do this, we are working closely with some of the best digital and technological brains, and renowned experts in clinical safety and digital ethics, so that we can get all this right. The more people who sign up for the new app when it goes live, the better informed our response will be and the better we can therefore protect the NHS.

    Fourthly, we need to make sure that we make the best possible use of science and research to pursue the vaccines and treatments that are essential to defeat the virus once and for all. Here, the UK is at the forefront of the global effort. We have put more money into the global efforts to search for a vaccine than any other country, and yesterday I announced over £40 million of funding for the two most promising UK projects—at Imperial ​and Oxford. The vaccine from the Oxford project will be trialled in people from tomorrow, and I am sure that the whole House agrees that that is a very promising development. I repeat what I said yesterday: in normal times, reaching this stage would take years. The innovative groups of people at both the Jenner Institute in Oxford and the regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, deserve our special praise. They are ensuring that the process is safe, yet conducted probably more rapidly than ever before. They deserve the support of the whole House in that work. At the same time, we will invest in manufacturing capability. If either of those vaccines works, we must be able to make them available for the British people as soon as humanly possible.

    The fifth measure that I will talk about in the time available is the one in which everyone can play their part: social distancing. I want to thank everyone across the country for their steadfast commitment in following the rules, including in this House. It is making a difference. We are at the peak. But before we relax or make changes to any social distancing rules, we have set out five tests that need to be met: first, that the NHS can continue to cope; secondly, that the operational challenges have been met; thirdly, that the daily death rate falls sustainably and consistently; fourthly, that the rate of infection is decreasing; and fifthly, and most importantly, that there is no risk of a second peak.

    Finally, we are working to protect the most vulnerable through shielding—this is the sixth part of our battle plan. There has been a huge effort across Government to contact and support those at risk. We have been boosted by the support and help of the heroic NHS volunteer responders, who signed up in droves within two days of our call to action. An unbelievable 750,000 people put themselves forward for this initiative. With those volunteers, and with the support of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the NHS and local councils, which have done amazing work on this, we are shielding the most vulnerable.

    These are unprecedented times for us all. We have all seen the extraordinary impact of coronavirus in our constituencies and across the country. And even though today we are physically separated, the House is at its best when we are united in our purpose and our resolve. I will keep working with Members from right across the House in the fight against this invisible killer. This may be akin to a war, but it is one where the whole of humanity is on the same side. I commend this statement to the House.