Tag: Greville Janner

Below is the text of the speech made by Greville Janner, the then Labour MP for Leicester West, in the House of Commons on 26 June 1978.

I am happy to have this opportunity to discuss the increasing failure rate in claims for unfair dismissal brought before industrial tribunals. The latest figures ​ were supplied to me by the Minister on 9th June and show that the failure rate is now 69 per cent.—that is to say, those who bring unfair dismissal claims stand at least a two-to-one chance of losing. Their prospects of success are now no more than 31 per cent.

In addition, according to the figures for the second quarter of 1977—the latest for which figures are available—even if successful they would recover an average of only £355. In other words, the failure rate is 69 per cent. and even where it is ruled that they were dismissed unfairly they will probably get no more than £355.

I am sure that the House will find these figures profoundly worrying. Employment protection legislation, which had its embryo in “In Place of Strife”, which was brought in without dissent as about the only uncontroversial part of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and which has been strengthened by a series of Acts introduced by the present Government, has been designed to protect people in their jobs, so that a man may truly say, “This is my job.” By that he means that it is not to be taken from him without good cause and that if it is taken he will have a reasonable prospect of good compensation to tide him over and cushion him against one of the miseries of fate, which was in no way of his making.

What has happened to the prospects of success? In 1972, about 34 per cent. succeeded. That was regarded as a low rate and was to no small extent due to people bringing claims out of time. Instead of 28 days people were given three months after the termination of employment in which to bring claims. The success rate rose to 37 per cent. in 1973 and 1974, and to 38 per cent. in 1975. Then there was a small drop to 36 per cent. in 1976 and a massive fall of 5 per cent. between 1976 and 1977.

Those of us who are concerned that employees should be properly protected ask ourselves why there has been this drop in the protection of employment. The answer that we commonly hear from the Opposition is that too many claims are brought without justification and should never have been allowed to proceed. It is true that some claims should never have seen the light of day, but equally there are hundreds, if not thousands, which are ​ not brought because the ordinary person remains apprehensive of tribunals anxious about courts and happy to keep as far away as he can from lawyers, tribunals, chairmen and procedures of the law.

I regret to say that other people do not bring claims because they do not want to be labelled as troublemakers, knowing that when they apply for other jobs, if they have been before a tribunal, prospective employers will say “We do not want this man: he is liable to be a nuisance.” So we can balance the bad claims which should not have been brought against the good claims which should have been brought but which were not.

So I come to the question of industrial tribunals. Why is it that this failure rate is probably the highest in any tribunal in Britain? I suggest, after not inconsiderable experience in this sphere, that there are two main reasons. First, employers are learning to operate procedures which are at least apparently fair. They document their procedures. Where possible, they give at least one written warning of intended dismissal. Where a tribunal is faced with a fair procedure, the employer nearly always wins.

Equally and conversely, the employee does not know how to operate any such procedure for his own protection. The average person does not know, for example, that when he receives a memorandum of complaint, when he receives a warning suggesting that he may lose his job if he does not change his ways, he should reply in writing and that he should keep a copy of his reply. The documentation of his case is as important to him as it is to the employer. The employer will have his case on file. The employee will be left naked before the storm without any form of documentation and usually with little or no oral corroboration to assist him.

It is true that wise employees who are members of trade unions will go for help, but they generally do so after they have been dismissed. It is equally true, alas, that the average employee does not know that, although he cannot get legal aid, he can get up to £25 worth of legal help, if not more, under the Legal Aid and Advice Act in the preparation of his case.

That leads me to my second point. In general, the average employee is not as articulate as the average employer. I happily pay tribute to the chairmen and members of industrial tribunals who do their level best to assist those claimants who appear on their own and in some cases they lean over backwards to do so. In some cases they descend into the arena, and they cannot maintain that balance which a judicial function requires.

I submit that the lack of representation in industrial tribunals is as sad as it is understandable. One wants to avoid the legalistic approach. One wants to avoid the growth of what some judges have described as a plethora of case law. However, we are dealing with legal rights, with cases in which people’s future is to be decided according to the law of the land. We are dealing with cases in which there is an appeal—alas, on points of law only —to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and one cannot avoid dealing with legal niceties. It is the law which was brought in to protect the employee when voluntary effort has so dismally failed to do so.

So today there is a failure rate of 69 per cent. There is an average award of only £355 for the 31 per cent. of claimants who are lucky enough to proceed. So why is it that we hear the plaintive cries of chambers of commerce and employers’ organisations throughout the land that the employee is over-protected? It is obvious that the employee is under-protected. The protection which the law is meant to accord to him is not providing the cushion which he needs.

The truth is that the employers’ associations are making political capital in order to avoid further protection and they are complaining of what they describe as undue protection of the employee for one of two reasons. Either they do not know the truth, or they do not wish to know it and are deliberately misrepresenting the truth. Either they do not appreciate that there is a two-thirds failure rate and that the average successful claimant receives only £355 and that, as far as one can tell, not one claimant has ever received an “additional award” or approached anywhere near the magical £13,400, or they do know it and are deliberately ignoring it.

The fact is that the average employee is not sufficiently protected and the aver- ​ age employer should be told that if he provides that decent measure of protection which the employee is entitled to receive he has very little to fear from the law. There is no reason why this protection should not be afforded. After all, it is no more than the requirement of a decent system, with fair regard for rights and a fair and proper way of dealing with people in their jobs.

In many cases, it is not the inarticulate shop floor employee who is inadequately protected. It is the manager and the executive. The higher up a person goes, the greater is his loss if he is pushed off the shelf into the mire of unemployment, and the greater is the need for his protection since the more difficult it may be for him to get another job.

At every level there is inadequate protection, which is not realised because people do not want to know and not appreciated because there is a deliberate campaign by employers’ organisations to make out that precisely the opposite is the case, in the teeth of the truth and in the face of the figures—69 per cent. failure rate and £355, on average, when someone succeeds.

What can the Government do about it? First, I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the assurance which he gave in the debate we had on this subject a few months ago, when he said that he would have the procedures of the tribunals looked into with a view to seeing whether there was some way in which they could be improved so that, for example, the parties to a case could know rather more in advance what they would face when they arrived at the hearing.

That improvement will not necessarily protect the employee. As we have seen, he has no documentation to assist him. In addition, of course, while the employer can generally bring oral evidence to assist his case, the employee cannot do so because the only people who could assist it are his colleagues at work, and they in their turn are afraid of losing their jobs. The employee does not know how to us the witness summons or subpoena to bring them to the hearing, and even witnesses called on subpoena have a nasty habit of losing their memory as a result. The employee may not get more evidence without assistance, but he will at least be without the documentation and know precisely the case he has to face.​

Secondly, I suggest that we ought to provide far more information to employees about how they can help themselves—about how they can, for example, make use of their right to request written particulars of the reasons for their dismissal and about the duty of employers to provide those reasons within two weeks of the request.

The employee and his trade union should be helped to understand the need for documentation and the need to try to set out the employee’s case in writing in the same way as employers do. Indeed, the need here is greater for employees than it is for employers because employers will have other evidence and employees will not. Employees should learn to understand, and should be told by the Department of Employment, how best to present their case. I hope that if these suggestions were followed there would be an increase, not a decrease, in the number of those successful in their efforts.

I wish in conclusion to pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He has been at work, beavering away in the background in his modest and unassuming way, trying to help people at work virtually ever since 1974, and before that date, outside the House, for most of his working life. I should not like him to feel that this effort to find common ground in order to assist people is in any way intended as an attack upon him or the service which he is giving and which, I am sure, he will give. It is much appreciated.

On the other hand, somehow my hon. Friend has failed. We have failed. Employees are not receiving the protection which they should have. The latest figures which my hon. Friend has given prove that. I hope that he will be able to provide some hope of improvement, some greater protection for the employee and, perhaps, some hope also that the employer may have reason to worry rather more than he does at present if he does not follow those fair systems which, after all, are designed by the law to protect the employee from unfairly and unreasonably losing his job.

Below is the text of the speech made by Greville Janner, the Labour MP for Leicester West, in the House of Commons on 7 April 1978.

As the value of our currency declines, so inevitably does the value of the pound note and of each of the coins that represent that value in the hands, in the pockets and in the wallets of the ordinary user. I am happy to have this opportunity to ask the House to consider whether the time has now come for a complete review of our coins and our notes in the light of the decline in the value of money, in the light of inflation, and in the light of the weight of the coins that exist. In particular, I shall suggest that the time has arrived for the introduction of a £1 coin, for the introduction of a crown—that is, a 25p coin—and for a change in the type, size and, in particular, in the weight of the coins that are used at present.

The value of currency has dropped in the last 20 years by four times. That is to say, £1 in 1957 would have bought as much as £4 today, 20 years later. Yet we still do not have a coin to represent the 1978 value of a 1957 pound. Indeed, the speed at which the value of the pound has dropped has increased, as we all know. Since decimalisation, when the last major changes in our currency took place, on 15th February 1971, there has been a drop in value of just under 60 per cent. Yet this drop is in no way reflected in the coins and in the notes that are in current use.

It is clear, therefore, that a review is necessary and that steps ought reasonably to be taken so that people can have coins and notes that are convenient to handle, light in weight, last a reasonable time in the wallet or in the pocket, do not deteriorate so fast, and are easily recognisable by those who use them.

I deal first with the question of the £1 coin. The Financial Times today carries a splendid cartoon suggesting that I should let nature take its course and the pound note will disappear anyway. If we allow it to go on long enough, I dare say that that will be so. In spite of the tremendous reduction in the inflation rate from nearly 30 per cent. about three ​ or four years ago to under 10 per cent. today, the pound still faces a change which is inevitable and which is continuing along with the world financial situation.

What we now need is a coin which is convenient in use and which will last indefinitely. I am informed in answer to a Question that the average life of a £1 note today is 10 months, the life of a £5 note, which is used less, is 18 months, the life of a £10 note is two years and the life of a £20 note—which I do not think that some of us have ever seen—is two and a half years. A coin would be expected to have a life of at least 25 years. Therefore, even if the introduction of a coin were expensive at first, it would certainly be justified and much cheaper in the long run.

Given that it would be possible to produce coins, the question then would be whether this introduction would mean the end of the pound note. Here I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in many other countries both coins and notes exist in the same denominations without causing any difficulty, so that those who prefer to use coins can handle coins and those who prefer to handle notes can handle notes. In France, for example, there are 50 franc and 10 franc notes and coins. As the value of the pound in France is about 9 francs, this means that the French have the equivalent of a £1 and a £5 coin, although the latter is not in common use.

In West Germany they have 10 deutschemark and 5 deutschemark notes and coins. As the pound is equivalent to approximately 3·7 deutschemark, that means that Germany has coins worth about £1·30—an overlap in both places.

In the United States there is a silver dollar and there is a dollar note. Those of us who have had the occasion to visit such centres of civilisation as Las Vegas have seen that the coins have a use in machinery which is never approached by notes. In this country there were some complaints, which perhaps my right hon. Friend will deal with in his reply, when the size of the pound note went down about whether the new pound note would be usable in, for example, the machinery at service stations.

In Australia there is an almost complete coverage of notes and coins from ​ 50 Australian dollars down to one Australian dollar, in both cases with notes and coins.

When the 50p piece was introduced at the time of decimalisation, Lord Fisk said that he recognised that introducing a coin of even 50p—or 10s. as it had been in value—would seem rather strange at first. He pointed out that many countries have coins to the value of the same amount as 50p or more.

There would appear to be no good reason in common sense or in finance or in economics why there should not be a £1 coin. I noted that in the other place earlier this week Baroness Birk indicated that the matter was under review.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give an answer to a question which people are reasonably asking, which is why there is not to be a £1 coin very swiftly. Perhaps he will explain at the same time who makes the decision about whether there shall be. Is it him? Is it the Government? Is it the Bank of England? Who is it? Who decided that the £1 note should be reduced in size? Did he know about it before that decision was taken? If not, why not? Who is consulted? Was the House consulted? If not, why not? Decisions regarding our currency are of importance to our constituents and we are entitled to know what is to happen, what has happened, and why.

I turn next to the crown coin. There is no coin available and in use between the 10p coin and the 50p coin. This is a gap about which shopkeepers complain. There would appear to be no good reason why this gap should not be plugged so that there can be an easier denomination in the giving of change. There is no need for the size to be too large.

The White Paper issued at the time of decimalisation, specifically stated that the 50p coin
“should be of such a shape and size that a 20p or 25p could be provided in the same tier later if the need should arise….

The Board and the Royal Mint soon concluded that the 50p would have to be a fairly large coin so that it would be possible later to fit into the same tier a 20p or 25p in weight-value relationship”.

Clearly, although the Jubilee crown was a splendid souvenir which is treasured by many of us and many of ​ our constituents, it is too bulky for everyday use. It is a souvenir and not a coin for use in the market place and there would appear to be no reason why we should not have a coin which is half the size or half the weight for a crown or, if the Government saw fit and the Bank of England thought it preferable to have a 20p piece, it would be one in the same relationship and one, I hope, which would be hexagonal—it should have many sides—unlike the ordinary round coins to which the 50p piece is the only exception.

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is no good reason in logic, economics or finance why there should not be a crown coin and why there should be this continued gap between the 10p and the 50p piece. Certainly the only answer that I have received has been that we do not want more coins because they are heavier. I repeat that if we were to have more coins, the notes could be continued, in so far as they exist, and that if there were coins of a higher denomination, fewer coins of the smaller denominations would need to be used.

I turn to my next suggestion, which I hope has already been considered. It certainly should be if it has not. It is that our coins should be looked at in the light of the coinage of other countries to see whether there is any need for them to remain as bulky, and whether there really is any sensible reason why our coins should continue to drive holes through our pockets when they could be made from lighter and more convenient material, as they are in so many other countries.

I suggest that there is very good reason for changing the shape of the coin. It is not only blind people who are concerned with the shape of the coinage. People who have to handle coins in conditions of poor light are also concerned, and we all like to know, from the feel of a coin in the pocket, what it is.

There is no reason why we should remain, as we have done, so stagnant in our approach to coinage, and so old, fashioned. There is no reason why we should not have a radical change, even if, as was pointed out by Lord Fisk at the time of decimalisation, such a change is unpopular at first. It takes a while for people to get used to changes. I do not believe that this change would be ​ unpopular. I believe that it would be a very popular change to have lighter weight coinage of different shapes, which people could recognise readily and use readily. It would enable them, despite the lowering of the value of money, to have coins which are readily usable and changeable.

It is quite plain that, even if these mild and, I suggest, modest and reasonable suggestions are to be taken into account, someone has to perform a general review. I presume that it would be my right hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Treasury. It may be that this would be together with the Bank of England but, whoever is involved, the review is now needed.

From a reply given to me by my right hon. Friend earlier this year, I understand that there are periodical reviews and a balance between notes and coins, for example, but that no date has been fixed for the next periodic review. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that the time has come when the date ought to be fixed.

Fortunately, the value of the coinage and the value of our notes is going down by “only” something under 10 per cent. per year, but the decrease in the value of the coinage means that there is an increase in their number. There is also an increase in the need for coins of convenient shape and size, an increase in the need for coins which cover the denominations in most common use—that certainly includes 25p—and an increase in the need for a coin which would reach the mighty level of the pound.

I suggest that the time has come for us to have a silver pound, just as there is a silver American dollar. I hope that as the rate of inflation continues to decline the silver pound, which I would be very happy to hear the Minister announce, would retain its value for a very long time to come.

Below is the text of the speech made by Greville Janner, the then Labour MP for Leicester West, in the House of Commons on 27 February 1986.

I am happy to have the opportunity to raise on the adjournment the tragic case of my constituent, Kevin Capenhurst, aged 17. Kevin Capenhurst was suffering from terminal cancer while imprisoned in the Glen Parva young offenders’ centre. He was released only after I had made a series of representations to the Government. Were it not for the intervention in particular of the Leicester Mercury, which informed me of Kevin’s case, Kevin would no doubt have died in prison, as the system does not ensure that the Ministers responsible for prisons and young offenders are informed in good time when inmates are suffering from terminal illness. The result is that Ministers do not take steps to obtain the release of such people.

The system’s lack of compassion and its inhumanity applies whether the House and the Government are dealing with a 17-year-old youngster or a much older person. I submit that, where it is known that someone in detention will shortly die, to keep that person away from the dignity and decency of a death in freedom lacks kindness, compassion and common sense.

Kevin Capenhurst was the victim of the kind of life with which society has not learnt to cope. He came from a frequently broken home which lacked the stability enjoyed by most people. Kevin spent much of his childhood and youth in a series of institutions where good people tried to care for him, without great success. He emerged into adolescence as a young criminal who was sentenced for a series of crimes, some of which involved violence. Kevin ended up at Glen Parva convicted of mugging. He was a tough, difficult young offender.

After Kevin had been in Glen Parva for some months he complained that he was ill. His mother told me that she received letters from Kevin in which he complained that his symptoms were treated as if he was skiving and that he did not receive prompt attention. In due course, his illness was diagnosed as a rare form of terminal cancer. Instead of being referred at once to the Minister in charge of prisons, his case was not dealt with adequately or at all and only reached the attention of the Minister through me.

I pay tribute, as I have done before, to the speed with which Lord Glenarthur, the Minister then concerned, stepped in. Lord Glenarthur telephoned and gave instructions while on holiday, saw me at short notice and assessed whether it would be safe for this young man to be out of prison. When he was satisfied that it would be safe and that Kevin had somewhere to go, he ensured his release.

Once the Minister took note, he also took steps. My complaint is that there is apparently no efficient system to deal with such cases; there was no system; and nothing so far as I know has been done since Kevin’s death to ensure that a system will be created. What are Her Majesty’s Government proposing to do to prevent others from dying in prison when they should be released, whatever their age may be? What lessons, if any, have been learnt from the death of this young man?

As a result of Kevin’s release, he was able to spend several months in freedom. He was treated in the Leicester royal infirmary with great kindness and care. He went to ​ Lourdes by ambulance and told me how thrilled he had been to be wheeled around in his bed to the grotto. He said, “I have at least achieved something in my life.”

Before he died, Kevin was admitted by the Leicester Organisation for the Relief of Suffering, known locally as LOROS, into the new hospice, which had not existed when Kevin was first diagnosed as terminally ill. I pay my public tribute to the people whose devotion has created this hospice, and to those who work in it. It has made a vast difference to the dignity of the life of Leicester people. I also pay tribute to the nuns who run St. Joseph’s hospice in London, who were prepared to take, look after and love Kevin in his last days. There are not enough of such institutions.

Unfortunately, the matter does not end there. I wish to use this opportunity to bring to the Government’s attention what happens and what happened in the medical section of Glen Parva. I went to see Kevin on Thursday 8 August last year. I was accompanied by two of my assistants, Martin Hutchings and David Metzgero. I say that because of their corroboration of what occurred. We were to see the forensic psychiatrist who was in attendance and who said that chemotherapy was essential but Kevin was refusing to continue with it and that he had a major obstruction—a primary tumour—which needed removal, but he would not agree to the operation. I asked why, and the doctor said that he thought that it was because, perhaps, he thought that if his condition deteriorated his prospects of release would be greater. I asked whether, in those circumstances the doctor would wish me to speak to the boy about it, and he said, “Yes, that would be a good idea.”

I went upstairs, where I was shown into a lounge. Kevin was brought in looking very thin, but bright and uncomplaining. A prison officer in the corridor stared at us through the glass throughout the entire interview. That was not for our protection, because the boy could not have knocked down a nine pin, never mind us, but an act of discourtesy that we very much resented.

I told Kevin about the operation and he asked about it. I convinced him that he should accept the advice that he had been given. He told me of the awful side effects of chemotherapy but denied having refused it. He told me that he had never refused an operation, but, in the circumstances that I have described, he would welcome it if it would extend his life. I then had a similar conversation with his mother outside, explaining the need for the operation.

The House will be shocked as I was to learn, as I did from the doctor to whom I spoke at the Leicester royal infirmary, that at the date when I was requested to speak to the boy and ask him to undergo, by agreement, an operation, he was inoperable, and the prison authorities had been informed that he was inoperable. This is one of the most callous and unkind events that I have come across in my public life. It also did much to remove some of the confidence that this lad ought to have had in his Member of Parliament. I was asked to persuade him to have an operation when he was inoperable, although in any event he said he had been and was prepared to have it.

Eventually, the head of the prison medical service attended a meeting with the Minister and Mr. Hutchings in the Minister’s office and various excuses were made, none of which I accept. There is no excuse. There ought ​ to have been an apology and the Minister should provide one, along with an explanation and the assurance that such things will not be permitted to recur.

I wish that this House did not have to deal with cases like Kevin’s, but this place in its glory looks after individuals and their families and hon. Members who care are enabled through Adjournment debates to raise cases that concern individuals. Kevin’s case goes much further than his individual problem, because it reflects on the failure of society to cope, and because it throws into sharp relief a system that is wicked and ought to be changed. It is a system in which dying people, however much harm they have caused, are not permitted out of prison when it is safe for them to be out. Kevin was released only after the intervention of his Member of Parliament. I thank again the Leicester Mercury and Mr. Laurie Simpkin for his help in the campaign to have Kevin released.

After three months, Kevin died. I visited him often in the LOROS hospice and it was amazing to see that he almost a skeleton, was capable of living. This boy whose life had been a misery and who had caused unhappiness to many other people never complained during his last three months. He never argued but accepted what he knew was to come and nothing became him more in life than his way of passing from it. I salute the courage with which he faced the end of his life and with which he bore his pain and his tragedy. I hope that his life and his death will be used as an example, and that the Minister and his colleagues will be encouraged, for the sake of all of us who cared about him, to take to heart at least some of the lessons to be learnt from that life and death.