UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Storm Eunice

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Storm Eunice

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 18 February 2022.

    This Red Warning indicates a risk to life as extremely strong winds are now expected in the capital, providing the potential for flying debris and damage to buildings.

    I urge all Londoners to stay at home, do not take risks and do not travel unless it is absolutely essential.

    City Hall is in close contact with key agencies across the capital and our city is as prepared as possible for any potential impacts of Storm Eunice.

    However, it is vital that Londoners listen to the official advice today and stay at home until the storm has passed.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Russian Cyber Attack on Ukraine

    Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Russian Cyber Attack on Ukraine

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 18 February 2022.

    The UK Government judges that the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) were involved in this week’s distributed denial of service attacks against the financial sector in Ukraine.

    The attack showed a continued disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. This activity is yet another example of Russia’s aggressive acts against Ukraine.

    This disruptive behaviour is unacceptable – Russia must stop this activity and respect Ukrainian sovereignty. We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Second OSCE Meeting Missed by Russia

    Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Second OSCE Meeting Missed by Russia

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 18 February 2022.

    Despite Russia’s claims to seek dialogue, all the evidence shows the opposite. This is the second OSCE meeting that Russia has boycotted. If Russia was serious about de-escalation, it would withdraw its troops and show up to these meetings. Instead we see contempt for the OSCE commitments to which it freely signed up.

    Russia has the opportunity to de-escalate, withdraw its troops, and engage in meaningful dialogue. It must do so.

  • Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    The speech made by Ramsay MacDonald, the then Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 12 March 1923.

    When I put certain questions to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) this afternoon my object was to find upon what constitutional procedure the action of yesterday took place. Every Member of this House must feel that when such proceedings take place it is the duty of the Opposition to see that the Government justifies itself. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, we do not associate ourselves in any way with any action of a hostile character taken against the Irish Free State. That is not the question that is involved at all. The question that we raise is, What power had my right hon. Friend to do what he has done, under what Regulations, under what Statute did he act in doing what he did. Did he take the power which he ought to take to safeguard the rights and liberties of the deported men? I am not a lawyer, and cannot approach the question from a legal technical point of view, but I do care for the proper administration of the law of this country, and for the rights, not, only of citizens of this country, but also of people who are domiciled in this country and made subject to the law of the country. This is not merely a lawyer’s point. We have got to bring to bear upon those questions a broad commonsense intelligence which will do justice to all people who are our citizens or our guests. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General is going to speak first, but we want to know straight away the Government’s statement of its own case.

    I am not going to assume that the men who were deported are guilty simply because the Government or the Home Secretary has deported them. It is my duty to satisfy myself that my right hon. Friend acted legally in the performance of that duty. I would like to know what pains he took to satisfy himself that whatever statements were made against them were sound evidence against them? I ask how long he took to investigate this matter? It could not have been done in 24 hours, for the domiciles of these people were scattered pretty far, north, south, east and west. What machinery did he put into operation to investigate every case, as he had no business to deport any man unless the case against that man as a separate individual was established to his satisfaction? Moreover, what steps did he take to satisfy himself that the people deported were subjects of the Free State? Did he satisfy himself that he was not handing over any subject of this country to the independent jurisdiction of a, State that enjoys the status of an independent Dominion within the Empire? The right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon that he acted under Regulations drafted in accordance with the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act of 1920. I do not know what view is taken by my legal friends to the right and to the left of me. I take the layman’s view, and I think it is the safest thing to take the layman’s view to begin with.

    What is the common-sense view of the Act of 1920? That Act was passed by this House at a time when the whole of Ireland was part of the sovereignty of this country. We were responsible for Cork, just as we were responsible for Belfast, and just as we were responsible for London. Ireland in 1920 was in rebellion against us we had our troops in Ireland; we had our police in Ireland. We were suppressing a rebellion that had broken out in Ireland. We drafted and passed the Restoration of Order in Ireland. Act, which applies not to the present disturbances in Ireland, but applied to the disorderly situation in Ireland when it was in rebellion against us. That was the purpose of the Act, and that is the meaning of the title of the Act. Certain Orders were issued under the Act. Regulation 14B in particular was drafted, not, for the purpose of sending people from England into Ireland, but for the purpose of deporting rebels in Ireland into England and to give them a residence here for the time being. What are the operative parts of 14B? So far as T can understand it and its application, the first paragraph applies to the case now before us, and the paragraph towards the end, which relates to arrests in Scotland and Ireland. It is purely technical, with no political substance in it. The political substance, as I understand it, is confined to the first Clause. What does it say? 14B enables the Secretary of State

    “by order to require a person forthwith, or from time to time, either to remain in or to proceed to and reside in such place as may be specified in the Order.”

    Is that what happened to the deportees of yesterday? Are they compelled by Order to remain in the place to which they are deported? Take the next words—

    “and to comply with such directions as to reporting to the police as to movement,”

    and so on. And then it goes on

    “or to be interned in such place as may be specified in the Order.”

    Has the Home Secretary specified the place in which they are to be interned in Ireland? We ought to get information on that point. As has been said, a very important thing has happened since 1920. Ireland is no longer in a state of rebellion against us. It may be in a state of rebellion, internal to Ireland itself, but the rebellion is not against us. That is not all. Ireland now has the benefit of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, which we passed last Session. What happens? Supposing these Regulations still run on common-sense lines as well as in law, what happens? If these Regulations had been put into operation in 1920, and Irishmen had been arrested here for engaging in a conspiracy to aid the rebellion in Ireland in 1920, and if they had been deported from this country under those Regulations and sent to Ireland, they would live been under the jurisdiction of the British military or of some British authority for which a Minister in this House was responsible. Therefore, if injustice had been done to the deportees in 1920, this House, which is the guardian, as it must always remain, of British liberty and the rights of individual British citizens, was at liberty to raise the question of injustice, to censure the Minister, and to pass judgment on what he had done. That is no longer the case. That is the common-sense, Constitutional and good, sound Parliamentary point of view.

    The Home Secretary agreed to deportation yesterday, and the arrested people have gone. They are now in Ireland. Suppose they were shot; I do not suggest it for a moment. Suppose something happened to them which we all agreed was an act of gross injustice. Who in this House is responsible for it? No one. I cannot question my right hon. Friend. I could question the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or his representative in this House, but supposing, as a result of the answer to those questions being altogether unsatisfactory, one of my hon. Friends asked Mr. Speaker for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, what would Mr. Speaker say? Mr. Speaker would say at once that under the Irish Constitution Act this Parliament had handed all its responsibilities to the Irish Government. Quite properly Mr. Speaker would say, “Therefore I cannot allow the matter to he discussed, and I will not accept, as being in order, a Motion for Adjournment.” Is not that a substantial argument? I am quite certain the very last man who would resist that argument is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Therefore he must see that the responsibility which he took upon himself in allowing these Regulations to be regarded as alive in the circumstances of 1923, is an enormously greater responsibility than that which he would have taken upon himself had he deported under these Regulations in 1920. Moreover, I want to get some more information about the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon when replying to a question.

    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman)

    The Advisory Committee?

    Mr. MacDONALD

    Yes, the Advisory Committee. It seems to me this is very much a case of hanging a man first, and trying him afterwards. That is why my first question was what steps did the right hon. Gentleman take to see that the evidence which justified deportation was good evidence. He replied to me this afternoon on the lines that he himself had been satisfied, that his legal advisers had been satisfied, and if the men concerned still had a grievance, then this Advisory Committee had been set up to investigate any statement they might make. I want to know what is the Advisory Committee? What is its power? Who are its members, and who is the legal authority? Who is President of it? That is the first point.

    The second point is: Whilst they are investigating in order to give advice, what is to be the position of the deported person? Is he to be kept in gaol in Ireland, or may he come here and await the advice which the Committee is going to give? The third point is this: Supposing the Advisory Committee comes to a conclusion upon the two cases which were cited this afternoon, the one cited by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) of a person who is a British subject, and who, as the hon. Member says, was not, as a matter of fact, in recent times involved in any political conspiracy against the Irish Free State, and the other case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), the case of mistaken identity. [HON. MEMBERS: “The same case.”] Is it the same case? Well, it does not matter. [Laughter.] It surely does not matter when it is a case of grave injustice being done. I quite honestly fell into a mistake. I understood there were two cases. It does not matter if there is only one; that is enough for me. I think one has as much right to justice as half-a-dozen. Let us take this one case. Supposing the Advisory Committee find on investigation that this case is genuine as stated by my two hon. Friends, what power has this Government to take it back? Has my right hon. Friend made an agreement with the Irish Free State that if any mistake has been made they guarantee to rectify that mistake?

    These are questions upon which, I make bold to say, every Member of the House of Commons who has got any respect at all for the duties of the House will insist upon getting information. It is not enough for a Minister to say, “There is a very bad state of affairs in Ireland and therefore I am going to act “—I think the right hon. Gentleman used the actual expression” according to the convenience of the Irish Government.” No. Hon. Members behind me have done quite as much for established self-government in Ireland as any other hon. Members? We believe in it quite as much, we back up that government quite as much, but that is not enough to justify deportation from this country upon such Regulations as those which my right hon. Friend has quoted. I therefore hope without any further delay, and in order to enable some hon. and right hon. Members who are more entitled to address the House than I am—[HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”]—on a point of law, yes, but not on points of policy. I know my duty to this House. I know the duty that must be performed in this House. Whatever the substance of the rights or wrongs of the case may be, this House must satisfy itself that the administration of the Government, especially in matters like this, is sound, is sane, is safe and is in accordance not with convenience but with law.

  • Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    The speech made by Jack Jones, the then Labour MP for Silvertown, in the House of Commons on 12 March 1923.

    I beg to move, “That this House do now adjourn.” I hope, Sir, you will excuse me if during the course of the discussion I may display a certain amount of ignorance, as is only natural. I do not claim to be a constitutional lawyer. I only claim to ask for my fellow citizens their constitutional rights. We have been led to understand that the common citizen has a common right. The question I asked the Home Secretary to-day was not raised because I am a believer in the policy of those who are trying to upset the Free State Government in Ireland. I have been one of their most persistent and consistent opponents ever since they adopted the policy of trying to destroy the Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain and I have run some little risk in that connection. Therefore I am not here as a champion of those who want to destroy constitutional relationships between Great Britain and Ireland, but I believe even the Devil himself ought to get justice, even if he cannot always give it. Therefore I want to raise the case in the first place of one whom I happen to know. The only crime he has committed as far as I know—and I am acting upon information, personal of course—is that for some period he was the secretary of a branch of the Irish Self-Determination League in the East End of London, and he acted when all of us who are Irishmen stood on the same ground, and under similar circumstances will stand again, but when peace was made, when the two countries entered into an Agreement signed by the representatives of both, and when afterwards that Treaty was agreed upon by a Free Vote of the people North and South, and when eventually the Parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland were constituted we accepted the situation loyally as democrats and agreed on the principle that the majority must govern. However we might have differed upon details we agreed upon the main principle.

    What has happened in the meantime? A certain number of people in the South and West of Ireland have repudiated the Treaty, have differed from the understandings arrived at between the representatives of the Government of both countries and have gone in for actions which have been more injurious to Ireland than anything the British Government could do against Ireland. None of us are defending the attitude which has been taken up, but there is a certain number of people in Great Britain who, because of their past history, have evidently been on the books of the Government of this country and have made themselves unpopular and, perhaps to some extent, undesirable. Amongst them there are men and women who have washed their hands of this policy ever since the Treaty was signed. Some of these have been arrested equally with those who may have been guilty.

    The point I want to raise is this. Since when has deportation become a British industry? I know aliens have been deported for offences against the State. That may be justified in international law. What I am protesting against is the deportation of our own English-born citizens to another country because of a constitution which you have arranged. The Home Secretary to-day in answer to questions said he was doing so under certain defined powers contained in Acts of Parliament. I notice that one of the Acts was passed before the Treaty was signed, which in my opinion, although I am not an expert in legal matters, makes a considerable difference. The Regulations that existed under the Defence of the Realm Act in War time are not exactly the same as after War time. They have been modified very considerably in my opinion, although of course I would not claim to have the same kind of knowledge as some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If a British citizen feels he has no security that at midnight policemen and detectives may break into his house, escort him to the coast and take him away to any place they like, no man in this House or outside can feel secure in the expression of his political views.

    We have always posed as being leaders of constitutionalism all over the world, as being the Mother of Parliaments, whose Rules have been adopted by all other Parliaments, and we have been looked upon as the champions of liberty all over the world. I am not asking you to be the champions of licence. If a man breaks the law, let him be tried where he lives. Surely the law of England is strong enough to punish an Irishman if he breaks the law. But we have a bigger argument than that. What is going to be the result of this policy of the wholesale deportation of suspected persons from Great Britain? It is to feed the Irregulars with an argument which they have been using all the time, and which they can use now with greater force than ever. The argument will be that the Free State Government of Ireland is in a regular relationship with the British Government, and while we are striving to break down the barriers between Great Britain and Ireland which existed in the past and trying to kill race prejudice, we now have an argument that the Government in Great Britain is used against the people in Great Britain of whom the Free State Government may have a suspicion.

    I am not suggesting too much in asking this House to realise that citizens of this country who have been arrested, if they have committed a crime should be tried for it here. I am not defending any man who commits a crime. If a man wants to break the law, he must take the consequences of having done so. We are asking that this course of procedure shall be negatived and that we shall no longer put in force this policy, imitated from countries with which we have been at war, of sending away people because they have committed a crime. The ease to which I particularly referred in my question was that of a man who occupies a responsible position, whose whole life depends upon the position in which he now finds himself. I may be guilty also, because during the period this man was secretary of the Self-determination League in East Ham and Forest Gate was a member of the same organisation. I am not ashamed of it, and if there is any deportation to come along I will go. But I am not appealing for any mercy; I am only appealing for common justice, and common justice in this particular case, and the other case to which I can refer. The law of this country has been broken. I know that we shall have cases quoted against us, eases that occurred during the War. I have had some of those cases and I know exactly what they mean. During the War Irishmen coming to Great Britain carrying on a campaign against the interests of the British Empire, might find themselves in durance vile subject to all sorts of penalties, but I am suggesting that the Treaty was signed between Great Britain and Ireland, as a consequence of the movement that took place in Ireland, after the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations were so amended as not to give the same power as existed under the Defence of the Realm Act as originally instituted.

    Now we find the two Acts have got to be quoted. When did these two Acts become correlated so as to enable you to arrest any Irishman, and those not in the true sense of the term Irish, but who were born in this country, though probably of Irish parentage, and as a consequence are English citizens? What authority exists to deport English citizens from their own country to be tried in another country, it may be under martial law, for all we know? Have we agreed that martial law shall exist for English citizens? I suggest that we have amended those portions of the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore, in moving my Motion, I ask those responsible for the government of this country to release all those persons who have been domiciled in Great Britain. Let them be tried here for any offence which they may have committed, and let the law of England deal with them as they happen to be English citizens.

  • Rebecca Pow – 2022 Comments on Isle of Wight Coastal Defence Scheme

    Rebecca Pow – 2022 Comments on Isle of Wight Coastal Defence Scheme

    The comments made by Rebecca Pow, the Floods Minister, on 16 February 2022.

    This vital £7 million in funding will bring the Isle of Wight coastal defence scheme one step closer to beginning construction, and once completed will see more than 3,700 island homes and businesses better protected from flooding and coastal erosion.

    This funding is just one part of our record £5.2 billion investment to better protect hundreds of thousands of properties across England.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Visit to North East and Yorkshire

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Visit to North East and Yorkshire

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 15 February 2022.

    Visiting Teesside and Doncaster, I’ve seen and heard prime examples of what makes this country one of the best in the world at not only improving the lives of patients, but also developing my innovative medicines and treatments to protect us and our international partners.

    The expansion of the Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies site will not only benefit the local economy through the creation of hundreds of jobs – the development of medicines and vaccines means we will be continue to be prepared for potential future health threats.

    Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals are taking excellent strides to improve the lives of patients in the area – especially through expanding capacity for cancer diagnosis which is a vital part of our national war on cancer, that will be underpinned by a new 10-year-plan.

    Seeing the excellent innovations in the North East and Yorkshire, it is no wonder the UK is the envy of the world in treatments and health innovations.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Russia Not Attending OSCE Meeting

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Russia Not Attending OSCE Meeting

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 16 February 2022.

    Russia is patently failing to live up to the international commitments it has made around transparency.

    If the Kremlin is serious about a diplomatic resolution, then it needs to show up to diplomatic meetings and commit to meaningful talks. Russia’s refusal to engage with the OSCE process demonstrates its contempt for the commitments it freely signed up to.

    It is Russia that is the aggressor here. The troops stationed on the border are clear threat to Ukraine. The UK and our allies urge the Kremlin to withdraw its troops and enter discussions based on the proposals put forward by NATO to improve transparency and reduce risk.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Comments on Future Biological Security

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Comments on Future Biological Security

    The comments made by Michael Ellis, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, on 16 February 2022.

    Ensuring that we are responding to the changing global security landscape and taking reasonable steps to ensure public safety is of critical importance. COVID-19 shone a light on the significance of biological security and ensuring we have robust plans in place to protect the public from threats here in the UK and overseas.

    That’s why, following the Integrated Review, the Government will be looking into how we are protecting the country and its interests from significant biological risks. This will include considering the evolving priorities since the pandemic and rapid advances in science and technology across all aspects of biological security.

    Tackling future challenges effectively requires evidence-based policy and decision-making and a collaborative science base. I urge experts to inform our discussions and provide further insight and best practice to ensure the best minds and talent across the UK are feeding into our Strategy.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on £90 Million Investment in Green Bonds for London

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on £90 Million Investment in Green Bonds for London

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 15 February 2022.

    I’ve committed to making London net zero by 2030, faster than any other comparable city. We are facing a pivotal moment in our efforts to tackle the triple dangers of toxic air pollution, climate change and congestion to the health of Londoners and wider society. I also want London to be a zero-pollution city and have expanded our Ultra Low Emission Zone to cover all of inner London so that far fewer children have to grow up breathing toxic air.

    I have been clear that climate action and our economic recovery must go hand in hand. This will require record investment and coordinated action from everyone – cities, businesses, national governments and communities – to truly turn the tide. That is why I am leading the way by committing £90 million to help unlock more than £500 million of private investment through green bonds to support low carbon projects and create the green jobs that will help make our target of a zero-carbon capital a reality by the end of this decade.