UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    The speech made by Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in the House of Lords on 10 February 2022.

    My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I was much involved with the Modern Slavery Act and the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Field, so I feel I have some knowledge of this. I do not know whether the Minister, who is not at the Home Office, realises the extent to which all the non-governmental organisations of this country—including the Salvation Army, which works for the Government on modern slavery, together with the anti- slavery commissioner—deplore this part of the Bill without exception. This Minister may not know that but, goodness me, the Home Office does.

    I am very concerned about children, but I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, so I propose to refer specifically to Clause 58. Again, because he is not at the Home Office, the Minister may not have read the statutory guidance on the Modern Slavery Act. I have it with me—it was published this month. I wonder whether the Home Office’s right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, because the requirement to be timely in providing the information needed is totally contrary to the entire work set out by the statutory guidance.

    I do not want to bore the Committee, but I must refer very briefly to one or two points so the Minister can know. Under “Introduction to modern slavery”, the guidance says:

    “It is important for professionals to understand the specific vulnerability of victims of modern slavery and utilise practical, trauma-informed methods of working which are based upon fundamental principles of dignity, compassion and respect.”

    For goodness’ sake, does Clause 58 have anything to do with that? The guidance sets out how you should deal with identifying potential victims of modern slavery. In particular, paragraph 3.6 on page 35 states:

    “In practice it is not easy to identify a potential victim—there are many different physical and psychological elements to be considered as detailed below. For a variety of reasons, potential victims of modern slavery may also … be reluctant to come forward with information … not recognise themselves as having been trafficked or enslaved”

    and, most importantly, may

    “tell their stories with obvious errors and/or omissions”.

    One important aspect—which the Home Office on the one hand states in the statutory guidance and yet is clearly totally unaware of in relation to the Bill—is that a lot of victims who come to this country are given a story by the traffickers. That is the story they tell first, and it will not be the truth. Just think what will happen to them consequently under Clause 58. They will be treated as liars who have not given accurate information. Through the NRM—imperfect though it is—they will probably have got to reasonable grounds, but then they will get this appalling notice and find themselves not treated as victims. This is totally contrary to the Modern Slavery Act. It is totally contrary to the best of all that has happened in this country, in the House of Commons and this House, which will be ruined by this part of the Bill.

    Having worked in this sector since about 2006, I am absolutely appalled that the Government think they are doing a good thing in putting this part of the Bill forward. For goodness’ sake, will they for once listen and get rid of it?

  • Vernon Coaker – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    Vernon Coaker – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

    The speech made by Vernon Coaker in the House of Lords on 10 February 2022.

    My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a research fellow at University of Nottingham, in the Rights Lab, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I hope that can be noted as we go through this part of the Bill, rather than me saying it at the beginning of every group of amendments, if that is in order.

    Part 5 of the Bill deals with modern slavery. There are a couple of things to say before I turn to my amendment and some of the other amendments in this large group. It is sad to see modern slavery in what is essentially an immigration, refugee and asylum Bill. That is to be regretted. Notwithstanding that, it is in this Bill, and we have a large number of amendments and important issues to discuss.

    I regret much of what is in Part 5, given that one of the iconic achievements of any Government over the last few decades was that of the Conservative Government under David Cameron, with Theresa May as Home Secretary and then as Prime Minister: the Modern Slavery Act. As a Labour politician, I was pleased and proud to support it. It was a fantastic achievement, and a model for the rest of the world, and indeed the rest of the world has followed it. That should be set down as a marker in this place. I hope that the right honourable Member for Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, hears loud and clear what I think the vast majority, if not all, of this House believe with respect to the Modern Slavery Act.

    I find it therefore somewhat difficult to understand why the Government have come forward with a number of proposals which undermine some of the basic principles upon which that Modern Slavery Act was established. Clauses 57 and 58 put victims on a deadline to give information or evidence and penalise them for late disclosure. They take no account of the realities faced by victims of slavery and trafficking, and will make it harder for victims to access support.

    Like much in this Bill, the starting point for the Minister must be why the Government are doing this. What evidence is there of a real problem here that needs urgently to be tackled? There is none—I cannot find it. I can see no explanation from the Government for why they are doing this, other than a belief that part of the modern slavery legislation—the national referral mechanism, or whatever you want to call it—is being abused and misused by those who seek asylum or get into this country using the devious route of claiming to be victims of slavery when they are not. Where is the evidence for that? Where are the statistical points that the Government can use to show us the scale of the problem, to say that this is what is happening, and that this is why we must deal with it?

    This goes to the heart of the problem. I do not know what the politically correct term is, but the Government have set up this target to justify legislation and legislative change on the basis of attacking some mythical statistical problem—“We have to do this to deal with that”. The first thing to know is what has caused the Government to believe there is such a problem that they need this to deal with it. From memory, about one-third of referrals to the national referral mechanism are from British citizens, so you start to wonder.

    Those are the parameters of the debate. I will return to many of those themes as we go through Part 5.

    It is very unclear what problem the Government are trying to fix with these changes and what is gained by the clauses, because the cost of them is stark. We look forward to the Minister justifying that at the beginning of his remarks. What assessment have the Government done on the impact that these provisions, if passed unamended, will have on the national referral mechanism?

    Clause 57(3) suggests that a slavery and trafficking notice will be used even before a reasonable grounds decision can be made, putting up barriers before a victim has taken even their first step into the national referral mechanism. Can the Minister explain if that is the case? Is that the purpose of Clause 57(3)?

    At Second Reading, the former Prime Minister Theresa May said:

    “It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 728.]

    This is not from some wild, middle-class liberal or a person who is blinded by the belief that refugees, asylum seekers and those fleeing modern slavery can do no wrong; the former Prime Minister of this country outlined one of the deficiencies that many in this Chamber believe is a real problem. Does the Minister agree or disagree with the former Prime Minister? If he agrees, why does he not do something about it? If he disagrees, I think we will come to our own conclusions. How is that reflected in measures that create artificial deadlines, which have not been needed until now, and that penalise victims for not meeting them?

    Also on Clauses 57 and 58, it is not clear, and I ask the Minister to explain, whether slavery or trafficking information notices will be served on all asylum applicants or on only some. It would be discriminatory if they were served on some asylum seekers or certain categories of asylum seeker—for example, the people the Government expect to be captured by these clauses. That point was made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

    Clause 58 provides that decision-makers must take account of a missed deadline and that it must damage a victim’s credibility, unless they have “good reasons” for providing information late. Why is the national referral mechanism all of a sudden not trusted to make decisions and give weight to these matters?

    Amendment 154, which I have tabled with the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Hollins, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seeks to find out what the Government mean by “good reasons” in Clause 58(2)—

    “unless there are good reasons”.

    No doubt the Minister will say that this will be clarified in guidance, that we can look forward to regulations and that, when the clause talks about “good reasons”, we can trust them, and that of course “good reasons” means good reasons”, et cetera. We will get into the nightmare situation in which nobody has a real clue what it means. That is why I am grateful to other noble Lords in the Committee for supporting that amendment.

    I particularly highlight paragraph (g) in Amendment 154, which deals with the

    “fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the person”.

    Time and again, you meet victims who are terrified of the system, and therefore will not co-operate, or victims who are coerced into activity that all of us sat in here—in the glory of the wonderful House of Lords Chamber—would think wrong, but which completely misunderstands the coercion that victims or survivors in those circumstances face. It is not the real world to believe that they cannot be coerced into doing activity that we might sometimes think is not right. It is not the real world; it is not their life; it is not the reality of their situation. I say to every noble Lord here, if you were told that unless you co-operated fully with individuals you were entrapped by, your parents, grandparents or family in the country from which you originated would be attacked or worse, I wonder how many of us would say, “Don’t worry, I won’t do it”. It is just not the real world.

    How can the Minister reassure this House that all of that will be taken into account by those who make the decisions? We have trusted them to make these decisions up to now. We believe that the decision-makers will understand this without necessarily laying out in primary legislation that, if information is provided late, there must be good reasons for it or the information should automatically be disregarded.

    So, as I say, the Government have so far given no clarity on what “good reason” will be; let us hope that the Minister can give us some clarity today. How many people entering the NRM who are victims of slavery and trafficking do the Government expect not to have a good reason if they struggle to present their evidence in a neat file by a specified date? Who knows?

    Amendments 151D and 152 again seek to understand why the Government do not disapply any of this automatically from children who are captured by exactly the same provisions as adults. Time and again in our law—it does not matter which aspect; we have some very distinguished Members who are experienced in this—it is a fundamental principle that we treat children differently from adults, that we understand that children have different developmental needs, and that we do not expect a child to act in the same way as an adult. That is a fundamental principle of the legislative system on which this country’s democracy has been based for ever—or since for ever, or whatever the term is; your Lordships understand the point I am making—yet this part of the Bill drives a coach and horses through that principle and takes no account of children at all. That cannot be right. Even if we think that late disclosure and some of these things are right for adults, it cannot be right for children. The Minister will say that the decision-makers will of course take this into account. He will say, “Of course that won’t happen. If we have a 12 or 13 year-old child before us, nobody can expect them to be treated in the same way as an adult”. So put it on the face of the Bill so that there is no doubt about it—so that those who take decisions can have no doubt about what our intention is. Can the Minister explain why children, who made up 47% of those referred to the NRM last year, should be subject to the same provisions in this Bill as adults?

    In closing, let me say that the Government’s own statutory guidance says:

    “Child victims may find it particularly hard to disclose and are often reluctant to give information.”

    I could not agree more with the Government in their own guidance—why do they not follow it themselves? Clauses 57 and 58 are a serious undermining of the current provisions in an Act we are all proud of, and the Government should think again.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2022 Comments on Support for Domestic Abuse Victims

    Rachel Maclean – 2022 Comments on Support for Domestic Abuse Victims

    The comments made by Rachel Maclean, the Safeguarding Minister, on 15 February 2022.

    Home is not the safe place it should be for domestic abuse victims and their families. The extra support provided today will provide a vital lifeline for victims as they try and rebuild their lives positively while feeling supported and protected.

    These are important changes that sit alongside the new measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which will give victims of domestic abuse longer to report offences to the police, so that abusers do not evade justice.

  • Eddie Hughes – 2022 Comments on Support for Domestic Abuse Victims

    Eddie Hughes – 2022 Comments on Support for Domestic Abuse Victims

    The comments made by Eddie Hughes, the Rough Sleeping and Housing Minister, on 15 February 2022.

    This funding will give victims of domestic abuse and their children across the country the practical and emotional support to recover and rebuild their lives from this terrible crime.

    Through the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, the government has transformed the response to domestic abuse, helping to prevent offending and make sure victims are protected and supported.

    The consultations we are launching today build on this work and will help us give victims more options to move forward with their lives in the way that is right for them.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis Conference

    Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis Conference

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 15 February 2022.

    The conference is a critical moment for the international community to step up support in an effort to stop the growing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. The scale of need is unparalleled, and consequences of inaction will be devastating.

    The UK is determined to lead the global effort. We will bring international allies together to raise vital aid to deliver food, shelter and health services, protect women and girls and support stability in the region.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on Moving DCMS Staff to North

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on Moving DCMS Staff to North

    The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 14 February 2022.

    The days of London-centric decision making belong in the past. It’s an exciting time for DCMS as we expand our regional offices and tap into a more diverse talent pool.

    Our strength comes from our people and this will allow us to recruit the best, wherever they may be, to deliver the wide range of DCMS policies which drive growth and enrich lives all over the UK.

  • Robert Carr – 1972 Statement on the Coal Industry and the Wilberforce Report

    Robert Carr – 1972 Statement on the Coal Industry and the Wilberforce Report

    The statement made by Robert Carr, the then Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 21 February 1972.

    My Speaker, with your permission, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the coal industry and the Wilberforce Committee’s Report.

    The report of the court of inquiry into the coal dispute was received in the early hours of Friday morning. I am sure that the House will wish me to express its great appreciation of the speed and skill with which the court discharged its difficult task.

    The court concluded that for a number of reasons which are exceptional to the mining industry—

    “and do not apply in industry generally”—

    the miners at this particular time have a case for special treatment. The court in its recommendations distinguished two quite separate elements: first, the periodic increase in wages which is normal in all industries and for which it considered the National Coal Board’s offers of 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. as perfectly fair; secondly, it recognised what the report calls “an adjustment factor” meaning that—

    “a time may come in any industry when a distortion or trend has to be recognised as due for correction”.

    The court was convinced that on this account the miners’ claim

    “should be given exceptional national treatment”

    and that

    “a definite and substantial adjustment”

    in their wage levels was called for.

    Taking both these factors into account, the court recommended a settlement over 16 months from 1st November, 1971, giving increases of £4.50 for face workers, £6 for other underground workers and £5 for surface workers. The court also recommended further negotiations on a number of other issues.

    During the course of Friday there were further negotiations between the N.U.M. and the National Coal Board. A number of points within the framework of the Wilberforce Report and also an issue affecting subsidised transport arrangements were agreed, but the N.U.M. pressed for an increase of £1 over and above the increases recommended in the report for workers other than those at the face. The National Coal Board rejected this claim. Talks continued at 10 Downing Street, where the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government supported the board in rejecting the claim for the extra £1. In the event, the N.U.M. dropped this claim but negotiated a concession with the board related to the 5-day week bonus.

    With the exception of this concession and that relating to subsidised transport, all the supplementary issues agreed between the board and the N.U.M. were either consequential on the Wilberforce recommendations or were matters which the report recommended should be settled by negotiation.

    The union is now carrying out a ballot of its membership and has suspended picketing. It is expected that the ballot result will be known by next Friday. I am sure all sides of the House will join in hoping that the settlement will be endorsed.

    The Wilberforce Report emphasises that inflation

    “presents a most serious threat to the standards of living of everyone”.

    It is, therefore, essential that the country as a whole, and in particular all concerned with pay negotiations, should accept that the level of the coal mining settlement is, as the Wilberforce Court explains, due to reasons which are exceptional and do not apply to industry generally. It will continue to be the Government’s firm policy, in the interests of greater price stability for the whole community, that the overriding need is to ensure moderation in wage settlements.

  • William Whitelaw – 1972 Statement on Mass Lobby of Coal Miners

    William Whitelaw – 1972 Statement on Mass Lobby of Coal Miners

    The statement made by William Whitelaw, the then Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 15 February 1972.

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is right that I should report to the House on the circumstances of the mass lobby taking place, which I have specifically been to see to ensure that everything was carried out in accordance with the recent proposals of the Services Committee, and, indeed, in the best interests of all concerned.

    I assure the House that every effort is being made on behalf of all those concerned to ensure that this demonstration is properly and peacefully conducted. Every effort is being made to ensure that those in very large numbers who wish to come into this House and into Committee Rooms are able to do so. I specifically made arrangements myself when there for an extra 500 people to be admitted immediately, and that has been done.

    I pay a considerable tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip, who has taken a considerable part in ensuring that this demonstration is properly conducted and that everything is being done that should be done in accordance with the traditions of the House.
    I also pay a considerable tribute to some of the stewards of the march with whom I have spoken, who are taking every precaution to make sure that their members are doing everything they can to pursue it on a peaceful basis. The large numbers create considerable problems for the police. I should also like to say how much I admire the work of the police and the authorities of the House in a very difficult situation. All concerned are conducting it in a way in which I would regard as the highest in British traditions.

    Mr. Michael Foot

    We appreciate the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made and the efforts that he has made, together with my right hon. Friend and others, to ensure that the dangerous situation that seemed to be arising half an hour ago outside the House should be properly dealt with. We are grateful to him for making the statement. Would he undertake to keep a very close watch on the situation to ensure that large numbers of miners are able to come into the House and that they are able to exercise their democratic rights to meet their Members of Parliament and others in the House, and if by any mischance there is any hold up in this procedure, will he make a further report to the House? I am sure that he would agree that we all wish to ensure that miners coming on this lobby should have full access to their Members of Parliament in this House to be able to put their view.

    Mr. Whitelaw

    Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, within the limits of the accommodation of the House and what numbers can properly be admitted, those who can be admitted will certainly be so. How many are admitted of the large numbers inevitably ultimately depends upon how quickly those who come in then move through and go out again. This point is very much in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip, and this will be done. This is very important because obviously the House cannot accommodate more than a certain number at any one time.

    As for my interests in the matter, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He would accept that my determination both to go there to see to it and to return and to report to the House is evidence that I wish to see that, within the reasons proper to the House, every help is given. It cannot be possible, necessarily, to accommodate in this House everyone who might want to come in at any particular time, because that clearly is not within the capacity of the buildings or the arrangements that can be made here. But, within those premises, everything is being done that can reasonably be done.

  • Edith Summerskill – 1972 Speech on Whittingham Hospital

    Edith Summerskill – 1972 Speech on Whittingham Hospital

    The speech made by Edith Summerskill, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 15 February 1972.

    The right hon. Gentleman is to be thanked for the forthright and clear way in which he has presented the report. In view of the extremely serious and shocking revelations in it, will he accept that the recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible? Will he bear in mind the deep concern of all hon. Members that the report is the latest in a succession of hospital scandals, following as it does the 1968 inquiry into the “Sans Everything” allegations, the 1969 Ely Hospital inquiry and last year’s Farleigh Hospital inquiry?

    As we are dealing with the most vulnerable in the community, who are entirely dependent on the compassion or the disciplined care of others, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman four specific questions.

    First, what immediate steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that not only in Whittingham but in similar hospitals there is from now on first-class, efficient management and co-ordination between hospital management committees, regional hospital boards and medical nursing administrators?

    Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to increase the inspection of all such hospitals by the General Nursing Council at more frequent intervals and encourage a more rapid turnover of staff, periodically bringing in new staff from outside, because in such hospitals the staff become as institutionalised as the patients?

    Thirdly, will the Secretary of State encourage the more active rehabilitation of long-stay chronic or psycho-geriatric patients, with increased transfer to community care, and will he consider giving greater powers to his proposed community health councils in the forthcoming reorganisation of the National Health Service?

    Fourthly, we note no mention in the right hon. Gentleman’s statement of the Ombudsman. Will he recognise that there is public anxiety about the lack of investigation of complaints into the National Health Service and that his Committee to investigate the role and setup of the Hospital Advisory Service is no substitute for a hospital Ombudsman, because such complaints need an independent procedure outside the National Health Service? Will he seriously consider the setting up of a hospital commissioner?

  • Keith Joseph – 1972 Statement on Whittingham Hospital

    Keith Joseph – 1972 Statement on Whittingham Hospital

    The statement made by Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 15 February 1972.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the administration of, and conditions at, Whittingham Hospital, near Preston, Lancashire. The report has been published this afternoon in Command Paper No. 4861.

    Allegations of ill-treatment of patients, fraud and maladministration at Whittingham were made in confidence to my predecessor in 1969. These were followed by a special audit investigation and inquiries by the police. Shortly after the police inquiries were completed a nurse was tried and convicted of manslaughter of a patient. As soon as I was free to do so after these proceedings I set up the committee of inquiry, which made its report to me early in November. Publication of the report has been delayed while charges against two other nurses, on which both were acquitted. were before the courts.

    The report is very disturbing. It is highly critical of standards of medical and nursing services in some parts of the hospital, particularly for longer-stay patients, and of the management. It also criticises the Manchester Regional Hospital Board, and to some extent my Department also. With a few qualifications, which are not however central to the main issues, I accept the conclusions and recommendations.

    The report assesses Whittingham as a hospital of wide contrasts and an extreme example of a hospital which has failed to keep up with the times. Side by side with some good modern services, it found in the long-stay wards evidence of old-fashioned methods, inadequate treatment and rehabilitation, poor buildings and insufficient medical and nursing staff. The report severely criticises the medical and nursing administration, the management structure and the way these worked; it describes the result as a hospital with day-to-day tactics but no overall strategy The committee of inquiry believes that in these conditions there have been instances of ill-treatment and large-scale pilfering by some members of the staff and the further evil of suppression of complaints about such practices when made by junior staff.

    As the House knows, I have set up a Committee to review the procedures for dealing with complaints in hospitals, and I have arranged for this most distressing aspect of the Whittingham Report to be brought to its attention.

    The report apportions a share of the blame for the general state of affairs at Whittingham to the regional hospital board, which, while pioneering the establishment of psychiatric units in general hospitals, did not adequately recognise the needs of elderly long-stay patients, which led to dual standards of care. I accept that my own Department as well as others may not have been sufficiently alive to this danger in earlier years. Our present policies take full account of it.

    The report recommends that all members of the Whittingham Hospital Management Committee should be invited to resign and the committee reconstituted. It also recommends complete operational integration of the medical and nursing services at Whittingham with those of the psychiatric unit at Preston. Such integration is undoubtedly most desirable, but in my view it is doubtful whether it can be achieved satisfactorily without amalgamating under a single hospital management committee the hospitals at present in the Whittingham and in the Preston and Chorley groups. The board has already started local consultations on proposals for amalgamation. The chairman of the Whittingham committee resigned in December on grounds of ill-health, and four other members have resigned in the course of discussions of the proposed amalgamation. With my endorsement the chairman of the board is inviting the remaining member to resign so that a reconstituted committee can be appointed with amalgamation with the Preston and Chorley group of hospitals in mind at an early date. The new committee will need to consider the many detailed recommendations in the report for improvements at Whittingham itself. There have already been important staff changes.

    This report highlights two of the most important problems facing the hospital service today: the proper care and treatment of longer-stay and elderly patients in large isolated mental hospitals, and the proper planning of the transition from services based on such hospitals to services based on departments in general hospitals. I have asked all boards to review their services for longer-stay mentally ill patients, looking particularly at outmoded attitudes, at allocation of staff, and at management policies and organisation. Each board is also now working out and discussing with my Department plans for the restructuring of its services for the mentally ill; these will provide for a properly organised transition to services based in general hospitals, and improved standards in the old mental hospitals until they eventually close.

    It would be wrong to jump to general conclusions from the indictment in this report of some parts of one hospital. There have been enormous improvements in the last 20 years in nearly all psychiatric hospitals. The great majority of staff, at Whittingham as well as elsewhere, work with patience and devotion, often in difficult and unsatisfactory conditions, which we are now making great efforts to remedy.

    I have referred in this statement to the main points which arise from the report. The Command Paper includes a foreword I have written which contains similar comments and also refers in more detail to the recommendations addressed to my Department and to the regional hospital board; action on most of these has already been taken or is under way.

    The House will, I am sure, be grateful, as I am, to Sir Robert Payne and the other members of the Committee for the time and effort they devoted to their inquiry and to producing this forthright and constructive report. Ever since I have been in office I have been continuing the theme of my predecessor in concentrating on improvements in this and related fields where they are most needed. The House can be sure that the lessons of this report will not be forgotten.