UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Hamish Watt – 1978 Speech on Education

    Hamish Watt – 1978 Speech on Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hamish Watt, the then SNP MP for Banff, in the House of Commons on 3 November 1978.

    May I say how indebted I am to you, Mr. Speaker, for being slotted in in the debate. It will enable me to return to the part of the United Kingdom where the action now is—namely, the North of Scotland.

    There were times during the two opening speeches when I felt that I had wandered on to the stage of some well tried and often played pantomime. I am sure that you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I do not become embroiled in the script of that pantomime.

    I shall confine my remarks to the part of the Gracious Speech that states:

    “New ways will be sought to help small businesses.”

    The next sentence reads:

    “Special encouragement will be given to the education and training of young people and others to, increase the supply of skilled manpower”

    I have no way of knowing whether it was purely coincidental that the two sentences were strung together. However, I am certain that the two ideas contained in those statements, when taken together, offer a positive way forward.

    At present, small businesses are totally frustrated by the apprenticeship system of training. An apprentice spends half of his time on day release or block release the other half being spent with the journeyman who is the apprentice’s mentor and teacher in the practical side of his training. What incentive is there nowadays for firms to take on apprentices when they get so little use of them? It is small wonder that the uptake of apprenticeships is low. The Government, in the shape of the Department of Education and Science, must take a long, hard look at the present inadequacies of the system.

    I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that she is concerned about the levelling off of young people taking further education. We must reconsider the whole system. It is no good the right hon. Lady or others on the Government Front Bench shutting their ears and saying “This is a matter for the Department of Employment “. It is not. It is a matter for the Department of Education and Science.

    An apprentice is as much a student as any university undergraduate. Adult education and training will play an increasingly important role in the country’s economy. Therefore, it must be the joint responsibility of the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science to ensure that our young people receive a sound grounding ​ in basic skills. To that end, I advocate that the first two years of any apprenticeship should be regarded as a studentship. I make no excuse for labouring that point and for being totally specific.

    As apprenticeships are now constituted, an employer has only two years’ benefit from a four-year apprentice. During the summer I spent many hours in discussion with tradesmen, craftsmen and apprentices in my constituency. They were adamant that something must be done soon to change the system and to give them some incentive to take on apprentices on the one hand and to be apprentices on the other.

    Unfortunately, far too few hon. Members have been employers or have been involved with apprentices. They do not realise that a starter apprentice who has not yet gathered the competence or knack of handling tools and machines may be a liability, and in some instances an expensive liability. If they did realise that, they would insist that the Government create incentives for employers to take on apprentices.

    An idea offered to me by one employer during the summer was that small firms should be allowed to take on two apprentices per journeyman. If that were done, the journeyman would always have one apprentice with him while the other was on block release. That is an idea that should be taken up. It came from a man who has nearly 40 years’ experience in small business and who cares what happens to his apprentices and to youth generally.

    I turn to the plight of the school leaver who cannot get an apprenticeship or a job of any sort. What sort of society is it that throws boys and girls aged 16 on to the scrap heap and condemns them to a life of boredom, hopelessness and frustration? Equally, it condemns them if they use their surplus energy, which so many youngsters have at that age, in acts of vandalism.

    It may be that those who occupy the Government Front Bench will claim that we live in a Socialist society. If that is so, it is high time that we saw something of the social face of Socialism. No doubt Ministers will smugly say ” It is nothing to do with us. Responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for Employment, the Home Secretary or somebody else.” I ​ am afraid that responsibility lies with the Department of Education and Science. It is responsible for the guidance of children from the age of 5 to 16. It cannot wash its hands of that responsibility the moment children reach 16.

    Responsibility must squarely lie with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to educate and train young people until they have the skills that some employer wants. A system must be evolved in which young school leavers may opt for a six-month training course in a wide variety of skills. For example, there is the need for basic training in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, hydraulic engineering and, if need be, one course after the other until a boy has sufficient skills for someone to want to employ him. Time does not permit me to give parallels for girls’ courses.

    It is symptomatic of the House that no one will ask me at a later stage for my ideas on that subject.

    If the words

    “Special encouragement will be given to the education and training of young people”

    that appear in the Gracious Speech are to have any real meaning, let us have some action soon.

    The Prime Minister said a short time ago that Britain has its best chance for 100 years now that we have North Sea oil revenue at our fingertips. I have news for the right hon Gentleman. Scotland now has its best chance for 272 years. With Scotland’s share of its own oil, we shall have the chance to do things differently in a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish economy. We shall have the chance to look after our own young school leavers. We shall have the chance to do something about our unemployed youngsters.

    It may be that I was born impatient or that I grew up impatient, but the snail’s pace of this place and of Westminster thinking nearly drives me crazy. I continually tell the people of Scotland that even if Westminster agrees with a Member it takes 15 months to get anything done. If Westminster does not agree with him, it takes three years to get the message across. For example, the SNP was persistent at the beginning of the Parliament in calling for a 50-mile limit for our fishermen. After three years, the whole House agrees that we need such a limit.

    Finally, I return to the problem of education of the school leaver. It has been evident to anyone who has in any way been engaged in industry or commerce for the past 20 years that the apprenticeship scheme as we have known it is no longer working. It is not supplying our new developing industries with the skilled manpower that they need if they are to keep in the forefront in a world of rapidly changing technologies. Small businesses need positive help to allow them to take on additional apprentices. This old English tradition of muddling through is no longer good enough, and the people of Scotland are beginning to realise that.

    The children of Scotland must be given a fresh chance in life, fresh targets to aim for and fresh opportunities in education and training to reach those targets. We on the Scottish National Party Bench are disappointed that economic power has not been devolved to Scotland, but we are pleased that at least the control of education has been devolved. We intend to give education a new and wider meaning than a Westminster Government have ever given it. We should like, as we go, to commend our fresh ideas to England, but frankly we doubt whether the English will ever shake off their lethargy sufficiently to achieve any worthwhile change. This place can always find obstacles to put in the way of change. The Scottish people have now found a way round those obstacles, thanks to the Scottish National Party. That way is at present called the Scottish Assembly, but soon, by popular demand, it will be called the Scottish Parliament.

  • Renee Short – 1978 Speech on Education

    Renee Short – 1978 Speech on Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by Renee Short, the then Labour MP for Wolverhampton North-East, in the House of Commons on 3 November 1978.

    When the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) entertains the House we can always be sure that we get a good dose of sound Victorian ideas. He must be very unhappy that he was born about 100 years too late.

    If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote Labour Party policy on education or anything else, he should get his facts correct. We are not in favour of low standards or lower standards. We are in favour of equality of opportunity. Nobody—not even the hon. Gentleman—wants to put the clock back to the time of social engineering when 20 per cent. of the age group went to grammar schools and the rest to secondary moderns. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not want to go back to that situation and place the burden on teachers to recommend children for grammar school entrance. That was a terrible time, and school managers, ​ parents, teachers and everyone else are glad that it has gone. The hon. Gentleman will have to find another line to pursue.

    I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about public lending right. I was delighted to see that it was included in the Queen’s Speech and even more delighted to hear that it will be brought forward quickly and that we shall be debating it in a few days’ time. I hope that the back benchers on both sides will be under control.

    I was also delighted to see that the Queen’s Speech places the main burden of Government activity in this Session on the conquest of unemployment and inflation. This is the major concern of the Government, Ministers and the whole country and what we do in employment bears heavily on what we do in education through training and preparation for work.

    I was disappointed that selective import controls, an element of Labour Party policy which is strongly supported by the party’s national executive committee, have not been included in the Queen’s Speech. These controls are necessary to help our own industries. In the past few years we have seen many important traditional industries almost disappear from the scene. Several others are struggling against a massive inflow of manufactured goods not only from the EEC but from countries in the Far East, where no one could claim that competition is fair and equal. This should surely be a matter of very great concern to us all. It is certainly a matter of great concern to the trade union movement and the TUC. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows what those initials stand for.

    We have asked for selective import controls for a limited period, and the words to emphasise are “selective” and ” limited”. Areas such as the West Midlands have seen industries decline and products disappear from the market. In some areas, it is difficult to find any British-made goods, yet we sit back while this continues in the footwear, knitwear, clothing, motor car and motor cycle industries. I understand that there is now also competition from Japan in heavy vehicles, which worries my trade union—the Transport and General Workers’ Union—considerably. We find that across a whole range of household electrical products it is practically impossible to find anything that is made in this country.

    All this adds to unemployment, and if there is growing unemployment and the sort of tough unemployment that we find it difficult to deal with it means that young people leaving school find it difficult to get apprenticeships and jobs and this places considerable burdens on the education system, particularly further education.

    I am sorry that there appears to be a great deal of confusion about what I thought was to be a matter of policy introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this Session, namely the introduction of the recommendation of the thirteenth report of the Expenditure Committee on maintenance grants for the 16 to 18-year-olds. When my right hon. Friend appeared before the Committee, she gave the impression that she favoured this policy and later announced that the Government were ready to commit themselves to a mandatory scheme such as we recommended. However, she has now said that discussions are continuing and The Guardian reported yesterday that intense negotiations were continuing on this subject.

    The present system is a miserable one. Discretionary grants may be made by local authorities, but they are given to only about 10 per cent. of the young people who stay on at school. The grants are very small, and average only about £2 per week, which is neither here nor there at a time when so many families are under pressure because of low wages or unemployment.

    The Expenditure Committee proposed that grants should be mandatory because the mean local authorities will continue to be mean if grants are discretionary, and only small grants will be given. The main purpose behind our proposal is that we are surely all anxious to prevent a waste of skill and talent. It is terrible to deprive young people of additional education and training and to compel them to go into dead-end jobs when they leave school. The prevention of this waste of skill and talent should be a main consideration of the Government.

    The Expenditure Committee believed that the maintenance grant should be ​comparable at least with the social security payments that 16-year-olds can claim if they are unable to get work after leaving school. This would enable many bright young people to stay on at school, especially those from less affluent homes, with whom we are particularly concerned, to take examinations, whether the common examination, O-levels, A-levels, or whatever. If we do not do this, or if the grant eventually offered by the Government is too low, young people will still leave school at 16 and snatch at any dead-end job simply because they want to earn money, or they will draw the £11·50 a week social security benefit while looking for work and may never achieve their real potential or have the opportunity or desire to go back to education later.

    If the additional cost is £100 million, it is money that would be very well spent. If the money is not spent in that way, it will be spent in other ways. I remind my right hon. Friend that if young people leave school and join the youth opportunities programme under the aegis of the Manpower Services Commission, they can claim £19.50 a week, which the Government will meet. The Government are committed to providing opportunity courses for training for young people and to paying that amount of money. They would be well advised to think carefully about the options open to them and I hope that they will have second thoughts and that the mandatory maintenance grant will be introduced.

    I was also disappointed to see no mention in the Queen’s Speech of the proper organisation of nursery education. The Secretary of State made some telling points about the dereliction of duty of Tory-controlled education authorities. She described a perfectly disgraceful situation.

    We all know that a large number of authorities have not claimed the money that has been made available by the Government and that some have handed it back after claiming it, saying that they could not afford to start the nursery schools that they said were essential when they first applied for the money from the DES.

    The fall in the birth rate is welcome in education, not least in nursery education, because it means that we have teachers and premises available. For the information of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I shall spell out the policy of the Labour Party. Is the hon. Gentleman listening? I want to tell him about an important aspect of the Labour Party’s education policy and I do not want him to get it wrong.

    Mr. St. John-Stevas

    I am taking extensive notes.

    Mrs. Short

    I do not see that the hon. Gentleman is doing that, but no doubt that is one of his perpetual exaggerations. I hope to recruit the hon. Gentleman as an ardent and enthusiastic supporter in the campaign for nursery education to be part of the State system. That is the Labour Party’s policy. It believes that for those parents who want it, nursery education should be part of the State system for 3 to 5-year-olds. That would be a welcome step forward in providing nursery education. It would mean a considerable increase in the number of children receiving nursery education. We know that an enormous number of families throughout the country are devotees of nursery education. They understand its value and want to see their children enjoying it.

    When the Prime Minister spoke at the Labour women’s conference earlier in the year, he launched his theme of support for the family. An important part of family support would be to make nursery education part of the State system. Further, it would provide the ground work and the basis for the rest of the education system that follows.

    We can only hope that the Government will have second thoughts about two major issues, namely, the introduction of maintenance grants for young people who stay on at school after reaching the age of 16 years and the provision of nursery education as part of the State system for those parents who want it. I commend those ideas to my right hon. Friend. I hope that she will do battle for those ideas in the places where she is able to take them up.

  • Shirley Williams – 1978 Statement on Education

    Shirley Williams – 1978 Statement on Education

    Below is the text of the statement made by Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the House of Commons on 3 November 1978.

    I think that everyone in the House will welcome the fact that we are having a debate on education today, because we have too few opportunities to discuss education here. I think that there is room for a good deal more debate, which many of us would like to see.

    I am very glad to say that at least some objectivity has been filtering into the great debate about standards, which has gone on for so long in the world of education. On 26th September this year the national primary survey was published.

    It covered 542 primary schools and 1,127 primary classes. It is perhaps worth recalling some of the things that the survey said. I quote first what the inspectors said about the three Rs:

    “High priority is given to teaching children to read, write and learn mathematics.”

    They also said:

    “The children behave responsibly and co-operate with their teachers and with other children … A quiet working atmosphere is established when necessary … The teaching of reading is regarded by teachers as extremely important, and the basic work in this skill is undertaken systematically.”

    The results of surveys conducted since 1955 by the National Foundation for Educational Research are

    “consistent with gradually improving reading standards of 11 year olds.”

    Indeed, those tests show quite a marked improvement over the past 20 years, and particularly over the past four years.

    Too often examination results are used as if they were the only yardstick by which standards can be judged. I do not accept that. As we all know, a school may he doing outstandingly well in difficult circumstances without coming high in any examination results league table. A good school in an inner city area may not achieve as many examination passes as a bad school in a rich suburb, and yet it is, for all that, a good school.

    The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) recently attempted to suggest that the contrast between the Trafford and Manchester A-level examination results demonstrated the superiority of the old selective system over the comprehensive system. It does nothing of the sort. The social and economic differences between the two areas, measured by almost any index one likes to take—overcrowding at home, unemployment, dependence on supplementary benefit, unskilled or professional family occupations, single-parent families, car ownership or virtually any other index —show that Manchester is below all those indices, nationally taken, and Trafford substantially above.

    Yet, as if even that were not enough—and I believe that this demonstrates an essential weakness in the hon. Gentleman’s comparison—the hon. Gentleman also left out of account completely the A-level performance of Catholic pupils in Manchester, who constitute no less than 26 per cent. of the school population. Incidentally, there are no Catholic schools in Trafford, so the comparison could not apply.

    Such real evidence as there is about whether comprehensive schools are having an effect on standards of achievement points in a different direction. In national terms, almost twice as many young people obtained one or more A-level passes as was the case 15 years ago under the almost total selective system. Over four-fifths of school leavers now leave with some qualification as compared with barely half 10 years ago. This positive national evidence is reinforced by information from local education authorities such as Sheffield, Leicestershire, and East ​ Sussex, which shows marked signs of improvement.

    A Hertfordshire survey, the most recent we have, shows that in Welwyn Garden City, the first area of the county to go fully comprehensive in 1968, O-level passes almost doubled between that year and 1975, while A-level passes rose by 63 per cent. Nationally, in the 10 years between 1966–67 when there were few comprehensive schools, and 1976–77, the proportion of school leavers gaining the higher grades 1 to 4 in O-level GCE—and I take the Opposition spokesman’s measure of GCE and not CSE—rose from 17 per cent to 27 per cent. By any standards, that is a creditable achievement.

    There are, of course, some areas of concern and we tackle each of these where they are identified. For instance, in mathematics there have been problems arising from the adoption of modern maths in many schools and the preference of employers for those to whom they offer jobs to have traditional maths. This is why the Government announced, in March of this year, their intention to set up an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics. On 25th September I was able to announce the composition of the inquiry and to say that the chairman would be Dr Wilfrid Cockcroft.

    The Government have taken steps to engage in a curriculum survey. The replies from individual local education authorities, which were requested by 30th June 1978, have led so far to 90 responses from English authorities, out of a total of 97. We have had responses from all the Welsh authorities. We are promised returns from six more English authorities within the next few weeks. There is, so far, only one authority which has not submitted a return. Not too surprisingly, it is the Conservative-controlled authority of Kingston upon Thames, which will not respond to the curriculum survey.

    All of this shows that the survey has been taken very seriously. We are now engaged in assessing the replies received. We hope to be able to summarise the information and make it available early next year. It will, for the first time, give us a clear picture of what gaps there may be in our system, what its strengths are, and of variations in provision ​ between one area and another. It will be directly relevant to giving all of our children a fair deal in education. It is interesting to note that this is the first time that it has been attempted. As usual, we have not had much support from the Opposition Benches for the curriculum survey. I am bound to say that I believe there to be a certain element of hypocrisy in the endless reiteration of concern about standards by Tory Members.

    Dr. Keith Hampson (Ripon)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Mrs. Williams

    No. I will not give way because I have not yet indicated why I believe there to be an element of hypocrisy. I think that I had better explain why I think this is so.

    I mentioned Kingston upon Thames, which is just one example of an authority which is not co-operating in something which most people recognise to be crucial if we are to give our children adequate opportunities. There are a number of other instances to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. For example, the estimates made by CIPFA for the current year show that the average pupil-teacher ratio in all our schools is now 23 pupils per teacher in primary schools and 16·6 in secondary schools. Incidentally, these figures are the best we have ever had in our history.

    As for the worst records, the worst 10 authorities in terms of pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools are all Conservative. The worst 10 authorities in terms of pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools are all Conservative, although most people recognise that small classes are helpful in achieving good education.

    Dr. Hampson

    I was trying to intervene on the accusation the Secretary of State made that the Conservative Front Bench and other education spokesmen on the Tory Benches had not given her support over the curriculum review. We have. All the way through the procedures on the Education Act 1976 we kept asking for this sort of review. Indeed, two years before the right hon. Lady set up the maths inquiry, we were calling for one, and a year and a half before she set up the scheme for the training of teachers in maths we were calling for that.

    ​Mrs. Williams

    I can only say that the hon. Gentleman’s Administration were in power for quite a long time, when all of these problems emerged, not least the problem of mathematics. They did absolutely nothing about them.

    Dr. Hampson

    Is the right hon. Lady withdrawing the accusation?

    Mrs. Williams

    I am not withdrawing the accusation, I am sustaining it.

    Turning now to the under-fives, let me say at once that the 1977 figures for educational provision—and we all say that nursery school education is important —indicate that all the 18 worst authorities giving 20 per cent. or less provision were Conservative-controlled. Of the nine authorities which provided 60 per cent. provision for the under-fives, six were Labour-controlled. In the past two years, the Government have mounted a modest nursery education capital building programme. It is not as large as I would wish to see, yet the interesting thing is that only 40 per cent. of Tory-controlled authorities made any bid whatever for that programme as compared with nearly 90 per cent. of Labour-controlled authorities.

    It is not too surprising, with regard to school milk, that all Labour-controlled LEAs and only a minority of Tory-controlled LEAs have taken advantage of the scheme. Hon. Gentlemen argue that the rate support grant distribution makes it difficult for some of their authorities to take up this Government provision. It is perfectly true that for some authorities, especially in the shire counties, the combination of a rising school population and the rate support grant distribution has made life difficult. I readily concede that. However, there are a great many Conservative-controlled authorities of which this is not true and which persistently try to keep down the rate and finance their education by doing so and which fail to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them.

    The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) sometimes trips into words or print on the basis of rather inadequate homework. I must be merciful to him, because not all of us have to bear the burden of the hon. Member for Brent, North, who, I am reliably informed, is known among his colleagues ​ as the Colossus of Rhodes. I would like to investigate two of the more recent sallies of the hon. Member for Chelmsford. Last year, the hon. Member said:

    “The Tories would reintroduce national standards of literacy and numeracy, which were unwisely done away with by the Labour Government in 1966.”

    He was then asked what he meant, and replied:

    “You will have to research that one for yourself. I don’t know.”

    I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that there were once minimum national standards of this kind for schools. They existed until the First World War. A child could not leave school without achieving those national minimum standards. We had minimum standards earlier when we had the payment by results system in 1866. But at no time since the First World War have there ever been national minimum standards laid down by any Government, for the straightforward reason that they tend to be a ceiling and not a floor.

    The hon. Member for Chelmsford might wish to go back to 1866—we all know that he is extremely fond of the era of Gladstone and Disraeli—but he must recognise that when he accuses the Labour Government of having removed national minimum standards he is talking about a fable.

    Let me give a more recent example. The hon. Member for Chelmsford recently made a speech in Coventry on the subject of the 16-plus common system of examinations. He began by denouncing me for irresponsibility, for dangerous and inadequate proposals, for doctrinaire attitudes—indeed, the thesaurus almost began to run out before the hon. Gentleman had exhausted his adjectives. It then emerged that the hon. Gentleman was backing every horse in the race—O-level, CSE, common examination and anything else we might care to name.

    Not too surprisingly, The Times of 27th October 1978 said:

    “Apart from a pledge to preserve the identity of the O-level examination, Mr. St. John-Stevas’s proposals do not seem to differ widely from those put forward by the Government in its White Paper.”

    The article also pointed out that the hon. Gentleman said that he was strongly in favour of a single system with a common seven-point grading system and of ​ national provisions to make sure that the subjects were effectively monitored. But this Government said long before he did that there should be a seven-point grading system of common examinations, a national monitoring body to monitor standards, and a proper rationalisation of the 22 boards we have for examinations. The hon. Gentleman may look good in my clothes, but I suspect that he would look even better in his own.

    With regard to the 16-plus examination there has also been a long and confusing discussion about what local authorities actually said, so I shall quote once again what they said and ask the House to make a judgment of whether it constitutes what the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to call opposition to the proposal for a common system of examinations.

    The education committee of the Association of County Councils said that it

    “fully accepts the desirability of a common system of examining at 16+; uncertainty should be ended and decisions quickly made”.

    The education committee of the ACC also said that it believed that the common system of examinations would improve standards.

    The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, also now under Conservative control said:

    “We resolve that the case for some reform is well made. There are far too many examination boards and many of them work far too separately. Public uncertainty needs to be resolved.”

    It went on to say that it wanted to see O-level standards maintained. It said this against the background of accepting the case for reform.

    The Confederation of British Industry, in a letter to me, said:

    “The CBI is therefore prepared to accept the overall judgment of the Committee ”

    —that is, the Waddell committee—

    “in favour of a common examining system from an educational standpoint.”

    It stressed the importance of maintaining standards.

    Since these responses to the Waddell committee and the White Paper, it is true that local authorities have in various ways qualified very much. My belief is that the hon. Member for Chelmsford is much too civilised to have leaned on them, but I am not quite so sure about some of his political colleagues. But what is clear is that ​ all the local authorities after considering the points made to them, made the statements that I have read out to the House, and those statements, only as recently as a few days ago, the ACC in particular has reiterated in the form that I have read out.

    Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)

    I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not want to misrepresent the truth or represent only a portion of it. Surely the vital point at issue between her and me and the ACC and the AMA is that she wishes to abolish O-levels whereas we all wish to retain them. Both the AMA and the ACC are on record on that point, and that is the point of difference between the two sides of the House.

    Mrs. Williams

    No, I do not think that that will quite do. I recognise and accept that the hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to retain O-levels. He has also said that he is not opposed to a single examination system. The problem is—and the House must get this clear—that just as hon. Members opposite so often claim that it is possible to have both grammar and comprehensive schools, they now appear to claim that it is possible to have a common system of examinations and the O-level. We have to face the fact that choices need to be made. The ACC has said that it wants to see O-level standards maintained, and I believe that that can be adequately done.

    I want to say something about the Bill that we shall bring forward under the terms of the Gracious Speech. One element will deal with the troubled question of school admissions. We need to strike a new balance between the legitimate desire of parents to be able to express their wishes about where their children should go to school—and it is worth recollecting to the House that under the old selective system 80 per cent. of parents exercised no choice at all, a fact constantly glossed over in the frequent comments about parental preferences—and the need on the other hand to plan the redeployment of education resources.

    Over the next few years, local education authorities will have a very difficult job of planning for and managing the decline in school rolls. We have to create a framework in which they can arrive at a sensible solution for their own areas, ​ and that must allow for some control over the capacity of schools. Without such control there is no way of phasing out of the system some of the very old and decrepit schools we still have in our cities and some other areas in such a way as to ensure that our children have better accommodation and better facilities than at present.

    But in order to strike this balance we also aim to give all parents the right to express a preference for the school they wish their child to attend and adequate information on which to base that preference. This would include a sensible system of local as well as national appeals.

    I hope that the House will recognise that the present system is beginning to break down before our eyes. There are no effective systems of local appeal in some authorities. The national appeal system involves parents in keeping children out of school, sometimes for months on end, at considerable suffering to the child and to his or her parents, in order, at the end of the day, sometimes to secure that the child attends the school they originally preferred but at a cost which in educational and psychological terms is unacceptably high.

    The Bill will also include reference to the question of the governing of schools. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that here again the Government will be taking steps to give parents as well as teachers a greater role in the governing bodies of schools. Here again we are acting where from other people only much lip service is paid to the importance of parents, but nothing has actually been done by previous administrations.

    We intend therefore to lay down a statutory requirement to provide for a minimum number of parents and teachers on each governing body. As the House will appreciate, the size of a governing body varies as between a primary school and a secondary school and according to the size of the school. Therefore, I cannot give a figure but we will be laying down minimum proportions. At the primary level we intend that district councils and other minor authorities should continue to have a right of representation on primary school governing bodies.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

    When the right hon. Lady says “other minor authorities “, does she have parish councils in mind? They lay great importance on their right to nominate to the local primary school.

    Mrs. Williams

    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind awaiting the terms of the Bill. The question of minor authorities turns a great deal on the representation in schools, but we are not accepting the Taylor committee’s recommendation that the right of minor authorities to appoint governors should be phased out.

    With regard to secondary schools, it is our view that representatives of the wider community, in particular employers and trade unions, appropriately ought to be represented on governing bodies because the transition from school to work is of such importance. We do not believe that they are appropriate on primary school governing bodies, where there is a stronger case for other groups to be represented.

    I am particularly pleased to tell the House that the national bodies representing denominational schools have also been willing to discuss associated changes in the composition of governing bodies of voluntary schools. This has been a problem because of the way in which the Education Act 1944 enshrines a substantial majority for denominational bodies.

    Within the next few weeks a consultation document will be published setting out the background to our proposals for primary legislation and for the regulations to be made under that legislation. This will allow me to hold a further round of negotiations on the regulations and also to take full account of what is said in the House during the passage of the Bill.

    In response to fears which have been expressed about the prospect of radical change in the powers of governing bodies, I want to echo what I said in this corresponding debate 12 months ago. The changes in the composition of governing bodies are not intended to diminish the professional responsibility of teachers with regard to the curriculum and teaching methods. They remain, of course, the statutory responsibility of the local education authorities, and it is our view, that they should above all constitute a forum for discussion, explanation and influence on these matters. But there is no question that the governing bodies should take ​ over from the professionals with regard to the direction of the curriculum itself.

    I made it clear last March that in the Government’s view the Oakes working group’s proposals

    “taken in their entirety, mark a real advance towards a solution of the problem of forward planning and financial control of higher education in the maintained sector “.—[Official Report, 20th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 428.]

    I also indicated our broad agreement with the report’s conclusions as the basis for possible future action to modify present arrangements, but I said that before taking steps in the matter we intended, as I had promised when the group was established, to consult all the various interests involved.

    Comments received show a broad consensus in favour of the report’s main proposal for the establishment of a national framework for the planning of higher education in the maintained sector. Certainly, there is no evidence from the comments received of an alternative solution to the problems of management likely to command more support from the various parties involved.

    The position of the local authorities as maintaining authorities would be both underlined and redefined if the proposals of the report are implemented. The Government fully appreciate the concern expressed by the local authority associations that the interests of maintaining authorities should be protected in any new system, and the legislation that we are proposing will reflect this.

    The House will also know of my concern for young people from poorer homes who leave education early because their parents are not able to afford to keep them there any longer. Some find jobs and perhaps are able, with luck and determination, to continue their education, probably part-time, in later life, but many are not so lucky. Some do not find a job.

    The provision for them, through the programmes of special help to the young unemployed, is of the greatest value and is growing rapidly, but none of these measures can fully make good all that these young people might have achieved if they had been able to carry on full-time with their better-off contemporaries in school or college. We lose many of our most able young people at 16 from the ​ school and further education system, because they cannot afford to stay on.

    There is growing evidence also that the participation rate of 18-year olds in higher education is levelling out in a way that suggests that we are not tapping as many of the groups in the population that would be capable of gaining from higher education as I believe all of us in the House would want to do.

    I am determined that we shall mend this broken bridge, and the Government —as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) —committed themselves in May this year in principle to the provision of a mandatory system of awards to meet this clear need. At that time it was fully supported by the local authority associations, and I greatly regret that since then they have seen fit, at least in part, to change their opinion on the matter. It seems to be a rather frequent occurrence at present among the local authority associations, but I would not wish to make any suggestion as to the reason for it.

    In the Government’s view, it is not a question of whether to do this but when to do it. I will make no bones at all about the fact that the climate for public expenditure has become more difficult since May, owing to there having been no agreement yet on an incomes policy, but, as the House knows, the Government are looking very carefully at proposals for major increases in public expenditure and at the timing for the introduction of an educational maintenance allowance system. I shall keep the House informed on this matter.

    I turn now to resources for education. I am not yet at liberty to tell the House what is the position with regard to public expenditure for the coming financial year, nor, as the House will know, has any announcement of the rate support grant settlement been made to the local authorities. The matter is still under discussion. But I can say that at present—I think it is worth reiterating this—education’s share of the gross national product, which was 4 per cent. in 1960, 5·8 per cent. in 1970, and 6·1 per cent. when the Conservative Administration left office, was last year 6·3 per cent. There are reasons to believe that the figure will increase in the coming year.

    There is already provision in 1979–80 for 7,600 additional teaching jobs, which will help to improve the staff/student ratios. The figure for employment of teachers this year is the highest ever, at 464,972. The figure of registered teachers unemployed was lower this September—only slightly lower but nevertheless lower —than it was last year, largely because of the provision for additional teaching jobs.

    I hope to be able to tell the House shortly the position with regard to teaching jobs next year. We hope also to be able to inform the local authorities, within the next short period, about the position concerning school meals, because we recognise that they are put in very grave difficulties by announcements about school meal charges being made at a late date, as happened last year.

    With regard to in-service expenditure and expenditure on books and equipment, the House will know that there was an underspending, on the basis of the RSG figures, of £13 million for in-service training and £8 million for books and equipment last year. I regret both of these, because both are crucial to the quality and standard of education. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be talking to the local authorities about the ways in which in-service training can be more rapidly expanded in order to get back to the target for which the Government have provided resources, on the basis of achieving the equivalent of some 13,500 full-time teachers in the year 1981–82. But I have to say that local authorities have fallen behind our targets in the last two years. The same is true with regard to books and equipment, where we are making provision in the coming year for an improvement of 2 per cent. in real terms for non-teaching costs. I hope very much that authorities will take this up.

    I think that the Government have a good record in terms of the provision they have made for education, and I only regret that not all of that provision has been taken up. I end by saying that my real fear is that, at a time when the education system is beginning to show a real and measured improvement in terms of the quality and standard of education, we are offered by the Conservatives the recipe for a demoralised education service, a scheme for ​ skimming voucher schemes, aided places, and the reintroduction of selection in a curious back-door way, which in my view would disrupt our education all over again, just at the time when it is beginning to settle down and give all our children a better chance than ever before.

  • Eric Deakins – 1978 Speech on Redditch Casualty Service

    Eric Deakins – 1978 Speech on Redditch Casualty Service

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eric Deakins, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in the House of Commons on 3 November 1978.

    I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on getting an Adjournment debate so quickly in the new Session and for giving me the opportunity to speak about the problem generally—it is a difficult one— and to assure the people of Redditch that the difficulties over their casualty service have not gone unnoticed here in London.

    As the hon. Gentleman well knows, through our correspondence, and in his meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, we have been involved in this issue for some time now. As he ​ said, it is a most difficult one, and I hope in the course of my remarks to clarify some of the problems.

    Our concern has been to ensure that the residents of Redditch are provided with an accident and emergency service appropriate to their needs and—of almost equal importance—that they are fully informed about the different services available. I hope, if there is time, to return to this latter point.

    Hospital treatment for the great majority of casualties from Redditch is provided in one of three ways. The most serious cases are usually treated at Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham—a journey of about 15 to 18 minutes by ambulance.

    Other, less serious, cases are dealt with either at one of the hospitals in Bromsgrove, about seven miles away, or, if the casualty arises between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a Monday to Friday, at the Smallwood hospital in Redditch.
    Smallwood hospital is a general practitioner hospital of some 42 beds, with a casualty department staffed by 24 local general practitioners. They provide medical cover according to a rota which they themselves have drawn up. The general practitioners are not necessarily in attendance at the hospital throughout their period of duty, but they obviously have to be immediately available if required. During the last period of 12 months for which figures are available there were, on average, 170 new patients treated at Smallwood hospital each week. It does appear, however, that the numbers have recently been increasing. Until the end of March 1977 the general practitioners in Redditch provided 24-hour seven days a week cover and were, at that time, treating about 260 new patients a week.

    I think it might be helpful if at this point I briefly describe the general picture with regard to the remuneration of general practitioners who work in general practitioner hospitals. At present, the only approved methods of remuneration are the staff fund—also known as the bed fund—system as provided for by the terms and conditions of service of hospital medical and dental staff, or, where appropriate, sessional payments at the part-time hospital medical officer rate. These practitioners are commonly referred to as clinical assistants. Where the number of patients attending the ​ general practitioner hospital as casualties or the nature of the services being provided—that is, services other than those the general practitioner might have provided in his own surgery—are such that the staff fund alone is not considered to provide adequate remuneration for the work, health authorities may make sessional appointments at the clinical assistant rate to remunerate the work falling outside the scope of the staff fund.

    The clinical assistant rate is, at present, £720 per year for one session per week. Each session is equivalent to three and a half hours’ work at the hospital. There are no nationally agreed rates for “on-call” work for this group and health authorities are expected to agree locally on appropriate assessment of sessions for any on-call work, taking into account the amount of clinical work arising from the on-call commitment, not merely the length of time on-call. The rate of payment into the staff fund and the sessional fees payable to clinical assistants are those recommended by the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body, the independent body set up to advise the Prime Minister of the day on matters of medical and dental remuneration within the NHS.

    Discussions between the general practioners and the Hereford and Worcester area health authority about its future level of remuneration for services at Smallwood hospital began in 1976 when the general practitioners were still providing full casualty cover. I understand that at one stage it was thought that the general practitioners might be eligible for the new hospital practitioner grade. As they were not working as part of a specialist consultant team, however, such a regrading was not possible. At another stage in the negotiations the general practitioners were made an offer that was subsequently withdrawn. I can well understand the general practitioners’ frustration at these events which must clearly have adversely affected their relationship with the area health authority.

    In the end the only agreement that could be reached was for the restricted casualty service now in operation for which the general practitioners as a group are paid 17 clinical assistant sessions a week. This total number is made up of three sessions per day plus an additional ​ two per week to cover bank holidays, sick absences and so on.

    The concern over the introduction of a restricted service and the need for the AHA to establish what kind of service was being provided and what kind was necessary, led the authority to set up a survey of general practitioner casualty provision. As the chairman of the AHA explained in his letter of 27th February 1978 to the hon. Gentleman, the aim of the survey was to establish three things. First, the degree to which the nature and quantity of work carried out by general practitioners at the Smallwood hospital compared with a consultant manned accident and emergency department. One case for paying additional remuneration would be if the general practitioners were dealing with more serious cases than was normal in such a casualty department.

    Secondly, the survey was to find out the degree to which the work undertaken in the department might be considered part of the general practitioners’ normal workload. There is little doubt that a proportion of the patients treated in the casualty department would, elsewhere, be treated in their general practitioners’ surgeries.

    Thirdly, the survey was to provide information to help the AHA to decide whether or not the restricted service provided an acceptable level of casualty cover for the town.

    Unfortunately, both because of the illness of the officer conducting the survey, and because of the complexity and number of patient records being analysed, this review took longer than expected and, indeed, is still incomplete. Apparently the analysis of patients’ records retrospectively has not provided as much information as was expected. It has therefore become necessary to consider embarking on a prospective survey in which, it is hoped specific information will be obtained from patients during the course of their treatment. An interim report from the survey was put before the authority’s meeting on 16th June 1978. On the first of the three questions the report concluded that although the contention that the work was more akin to that of a consultant department could not be conclusively refuted, the evidence thus far available was strongly suggestive to the contrary. The report also dealt at some length with the pattern of treatment ​ for Redditch patients with particular reference to the location of the treatment whilst the Smallwood hospital casualty department was closed.

    I understand that the AHA discussed the report and the whole situation in considerable detail but felt unable to depart from the general principle adopted for its area; namely, that one session per week should be paid for each 600 new attendances annually. The Redditch general practitioners’ current level of remuneration, which had been separately negotiated at 17 sessions a week, exceeds that which would be payable under the general formula; and their request for an ultimate payment of 42 sessions a week for 24-hour cover is well in excess of the level likely to be reached were they to provide such a service.

    The AHA asked the district management team to pursue with the general practitioners the possibility of rearranging the sessions currently worked so as to provide fuller cover at the hospital. This might have involved, for instance, transferring one of the three sessions from the morning period. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the general practitioners have rejected this approach. The AHA also resolved to delay any final decision on the general level of remuneration payable to general practitioners in cottage hospitals pending the outcome of discussions on the consultants’ contracts.

    The hon. Member may like to know that a joint working group made up of representatives from the health Departments—DHSS, Scottish Home and Health Department and Welsh Office—representatives from NHS management and representatives from the British Medical Association has recently been set up to discuss the work of general practitioners in hospitals with particular reference to the implications for the remuneration general practitioners receive for this work which obviously is directly relevant to this problem. The payment of general practitioners for casualty work in general practitioner hospitals and units is one of the subjects being considered by the working group. The health Departments have made certain proposals on this to the BMA; these include the setting up of a special casualty fund, on the lines of the existing staff fund, to remunerate these casualty services. I cannot say more at ​ this point on progress in the working group or of the shape of any future agreement, but I can assure the hon. Member that we hope that an agreement may be possible in the reasonably near future.

    We must hope that these national discussions lead to a generally accepted basis for this type of remuneration. In the meantime, however, it is for the health authority and the general practitioners locally to agree on an acceptable level of service and of remuneration to the general practitioners for providing it, taking account, obviously, of the needs of the residents of Redditch and of the requirements of the pay policy that extra pay can be justified only by identifiably additional work.

    I ought perhaps also to draw attention to the long-term solution to the problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the West Midlands regional health authority is firmly committed to the provision of a major new district general hospital in Redditch. Its first phase is expected to include some 330 beds, together with a full consultant-staffed accident and emergency department. The question of the site for the new hospital has now been finally resolved and it is expected that construction will start in early 1983 with a view to completion of the first phase by 1986.

    A number of points were raised by the deputation which the hon. Gentleman brought to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 20th July. I should like now to deal with these points. I hope that the hon. Member will treat my remarks as a further reply to his recent letter and parliamentary Question.

    Perhaps the most serious point raised was that unless the general practitioner’s remuneration was improved there was a danger that insufficient doctors would be prepared to participate in the scheme and the service might collapse altogether. I hope that the remarks I have made this afternoon about the comparison between the amount paid to Redditch general practitioners and that payable in other hospitals in the area will go some way to avert that danger. I should like to take this opportunity to say that there is no doubt that the local general practitioners are providing an extremely valuable service for their town.

    It was also suggested that the AHA might make its own arrangements for providing an extended casualty service, perhaps by advertising for additional staff. It must be said, however, that this is no more than a theoretical possibility. There would be very great difficulty in attracting suitable applicants for such a post and it is by no means certain that proper consultant supervision could be arranged.

    The deputation raised the possibility of a reduction in the number of new attendances on which the payment was based. I have already said that the AHA felt unable to depart from its general basis of one session for each 600 new attendances.

    Finally, the deputation spoke of the refusal of the Hereford and Worcester family practitioner committee to pay night visit fees for the work formerly undertaken after 11 p.m. by the general practitioners at Smallwood hospital. The statement of fees and allowances payable to general medical practitioners provides that a night’s visit fee will be payable subject to the relevant conditions being met where in the patient’s interest the general practitioner provides specific treatment at a general practitioner hospital, provided that the doctor is not on duty at or on call for the hospital at the time, and that the request for the patient to be seen did not come from the hospital. I think it is clear that those conditions were not satisfied and that the decision of the family practitioner committee not to pay a night visit fee was, therefore, correct.

    At the start of my speech I said that, if there were time, I would return to the question of the information available to the people of Redditch about the health services provided for them. The difficulties over the Smallwood hospital casualty service were discussed at a recent meeting of the West Midlands regional health authority. The authority concluded that the resolution of the dispute did not lie in its hands but felt that the local residents should be kept in touch with the facilities in the area. I understand that the authority’s public relations department is currently having information compiled about the whole range of these services and that, after discussions with the district management team, the family practitioner committee and the ​ local community health council, it is hoped to issue a comprehensive health information sheet within the next few weeks. It is expected that this will be issued by a professional distribution service on a door-to-door basis to every household in Redditch. Such an information sheet would thus have a wider distribution than the existing leaflet on the family practitioner services which is issued by the housing department of the new town development corporation to all its new tenants.

    One of the items which I should imagine will be included is a description of the hospital services available in Bromsgrove. I understand that there is some confusion about the location of the casualty department in that town. The department is, in fact, at the cottage hospital and not at the larger general hospital. I know that the community health council has suggested that a full accident and emergency department should be provided at Bromsgrove general hospital. The AHA has, however, pointed out that when, as would be inevitable, the unit transferred to the new district general hospital planned for Redditch there might be difficulties in reintroducing a general practitioner service in Bromsgrove.

    I should like to conclude by reiterating what I said at the outset. Our concern is to ensure that the residents of Redditch have the type of accident and emergency service they need as quickly as possible. In that connection I am sure that the chairman of the Hereford and Worcester area health authority will not mind my making public a comment in his letter of 27th February 1978 to the hon. Gentleman. In that letter he said that anyone who had direct information concerning patients who had suffered as a result of the restricted service should let either him or the area medical officer know as soon as possible. I understand that no such cases have yet been brought to their attention but the request for information still stands.

  • Hal Miller – 1978 Speech on Redditch Casualty Service

    Hal Miller – 1978 Speech on Redditch Casualty Service

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hal Miller, the then Conservative MP for Bromsgrove and Redditch, in the House of Commons on 3 November 1978.

    On Thursday, 30th May 1895, as reported in the Redditch Indicator, one Thomas Woodward, agricultural labourer, of Red Lion Street, Redditch was admitted as the first patient to the recently opened Smallwood Hospital, Redditch. I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, for whose presence I am grateful, that I do not intend to set out the whole history of the difficulties besetting the provision of a casualty service in Redditch since that date. But it is significant that the first patient admitted was a casualty patient, there having previously been some argument as to whether a hospital was needed there for that purpose.

    The Minister may be familiar with the argument about whether a new district general hospital was required in my constituency at all, an argument happily concluded. But the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that even with the construction of the Smallwood hospital there was an argument for about three years over the choice of the site, and there was some delay in the construction. All that my constituents are hoping is that ​ the new hospital will be open well before the centenary of the Smallwood hospital.

    My intention in raising the matter this afternoon is by no means to conduct a witch-hunt of any kind. I pay tribute to the courtesy and attention with which I have been received by the Minister of State on several occasions—regrettably several occasions—on this most difficult matter.

    The truth is that we are confronted with a log jam. My purpose in raising the matter this afternoon is to seek the Minister’s assistance in attempting to break it. I hope that he will understand me when I say that it is also my intention to try to head off the possibility of a witch-hunt being conducted locally, in the press and by other means, against those who are imagined to be responsible for the difficulties affecting the provision of the casualty service. Such a public witch-hunt could only do serious damage to the morale of those who are continuing to provide the greatly reduced service and could well result in the complete withdrawal of the service.

    I hope that the Minister understands that that is a real possibility. I am a member of an action committee which I have been trying to head off from that very course, but I regret that it is one that it may determine to pursue.

    I spoke of a log jam and referred to several visits to the Department. I think that I should proceed to discuss the need for the casualty service before going on to list the various elements in the situation as I see them.

    The new town of Redditch now has a population of about 60,000. According to the statistics handed to me last week by the local employment office, there is a workforce of 33,000, practically all in manufacturing industry. The casualty service does not just provide for the growing new town of Redditch. It also provides for the surrounding areas. That has been recognised in the calculation of the population of the catchment area for the new district general hospital.

    The population of the area currently served by the Redditch casualty service, restricted as it unfortunately is, is about 90,000 and is increasing as the new town moves towards fulfilment in 1981. During the discussions we have had on several ​ occasions with the Department, mention has been made of the need for this service. The Under-Secretary referred to this in his letter to me of 19th August 1977. The area health authority was asked to undertake a survey at that time. A year later an interim survey was produced. We still do not have the results of any final survey, despite the lapse of time since the Under-Secretary was good enough to write to me.

    It can be said that the figure for the number of casualties from Redditch attending the Selly Oak hospital out of normal working hours, which are the only hours during which the Redditch service is provided—this can therefore be taken as a fair indicator of the increase in demand and consequently of the need— have risen from 13 per month in 1976 to 145 per month last year. More up-to-date figures are not available. A further illustration can be obtained by the fact that on a recent Saturday afternoon at the Bromsgrove cottage hospital there were 37 patients from Redditch in attendance.

    There is also a query about the extent of the treatment accorded to these casualties from Redditch at Selly Oak hospital. The question that arises is whether they are given full treatment or some first aid attention and then referred to the Redditch hospital during working hours on Monday for a full and proper examination. I am not qualified to speculate on that but I would point out that it is not unknown for there to be 110 cases awaiting the magic hour of 9 o’clock on Monday morning in Redditch. To the bulk of the 90,000 population the need for this service is totally apparent. People cannot understand why the service cannot be provided on a more satisfactory, that is continuous, basis.

    We must bear in mind that there is in Redditch a history of 24-hour provision of casualty service. Smallwood hospital is equipped not only with radiography but with an operating theatre. The staff at that hospital took a great and justifiable pride in the service they provided for their fellow citizens. It will readily be understood what a serious effect there was upon morale when the hours of operation of the casualty service were reduced to the normal working hours of 9 am to 5 pm, Monday to Friday.

    This reduction in service took place in April 1977. Previous warning had been given—very nearly a year’s warning—that the service would be reduced unless something could be done. Indeed, resignations from the general practitioners providing the service were finally handed in in October 1976, although they continued to provide the full service until April 1977.

    During that period of warning notice, there had been attempts to try to resolve the situation. The suggestion was made that the practitioners providing the service might qualify for the newly-constituted grade the previous year—1975— of hospital practitioner. This was found to be out of order on what appears to the layman to be the technicality that a consultant was not in overall charge. I say that it appears to be a technicality to the layman because consultants do provide a specialist consultant service on a sessional basis at the hospital. It may be that there is some professional objection at the bottom of this situation.

    It is not as if there has been adequate primary care available in the new town of Redditch. We need only to look at the new estate of Church Hill, with a population of 8,000 out of the 16,000 to be achieved in two years time, where there is at the moment a doctor operating from a semi-detached house. It is hoped to provide some portakabins next spring, but heavens knows what happens to people who get ill this winter.

    Adequate primary care is not available in this new town. I have raised this matter before in the House. I did so with the present Foreign Secretary when he was at the Department of Health and Social Security. There has been no provision in new towns for expenditure on health concomitant with the growth of new towns in the same way as has been provided for roads and education. This is a very serious matter.

    I turn now to the possible elements in the log jam. I have hinted that there may be some professional difficulties over the qualifications of these doctors. There may, indeed, be further professional difficulties or disagreements as to the provision of the casualty service and the priority it should be accorded in the expenditure of public funds.

    Whereas, for example, the medical staff committee in Redditch is quite convinced of the need for 24-hour coverage, and has accepted that, as a stage towards that, extension of the hours of the provisions of the casualty service might be a logical next move, expressing its willingness to do so if the necessary arrangements could be made, the district medical team, advising, apparently, the area health authority, did not share that opinion.

    There are administrative elements in the log jam. I will spare the Minister’s blushes about the effects on pay policy on the situation. That was one of the stumbling blocks to an earlier proposal during the period of notice in 1976. But it appears that there may well still be administrative difficulties. The Minister of State at one stage told me that a working party was to be set up with the Department of the Environment to examine new towns and the provision of medical facilities. That would appear to have made no progress. There has been, apparently, some administrative difficulty in the AHA concluding its survey, which has now taken well over a year.

    There may be differences of opinion between the hospital, the district and the area as to how these problems should be tackled, but the public simply cannot understand how it has proved impossible for this log jam to be resolved. With the withdrawal of the service, the increase of population and the advent of the new hospital, I should have thought it would have been perfectly possible to meet their quite legitimate aspirations and to treat this question as the special case which I believe it to be.

  • Fiona Hyslop – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

    Fiona Hyslop – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture, in the Scottish Parliament on 21 April 2020.

    The Covid-19 public health crisis has led extremely quickly to an economic crisis that is global in nature but also local, impacting on many people and businesses in Scotland. To combat the spread of the virus, many businesses have already closed and we face an enormous challenge in helping other businesses to survive, to provide jobs and to service the economy.

    I thank all businesses and their workers for following the social distancing guidance, the essential sectors and supply chains for continuing to keep the country running and those companies that have repurposed to manufacture supplies for the health sector.

    We estimate that up to 70 per cent of the workforce is still working, with many people delivering health, care and welfare services, and many others working from home, often combining that with childcare and home schooling. By staying home, they are playing their part in tackling the virus. They are helping to protect the health service and to save lives.

    As Covid-19 continues to have a significant impact across the world, there is major uncertainty in financial markets, supply chains and the functioning of the global economy as many countries, including Scotland, have had to reduce economic activity to stop the spread of the virus. The latest surveys for Scotland show a similar pattern to other countries, with falls in business activity in March that are even sharper than during the financial crisis. The chief economist’s “State of the Economy” report, which was published today, projects that Scotland’s gross domestic product will fall by a third during the period of social distancing.

    It is important, however, to put the economic impacts in context. This is no normal downturn and we need to view economic data and projections in that light, recognising that productive and profitable businesses across Scotland have been required to pause activity to support the public health effort.

    We have pursued three main aims for the economic response to date: to keep companies in business and with productive capacity so that they can recover; to keep staff in employment with appropriate income protection and support; and, most important, to provide support to staff so that they can self-isolate and care for loved ones.

    It is in everyone’s interest to help companies through this turbulent period. The United Kingdom Government has the immediate fiscal and macroeconomic powers to respond to the economic crisis and it has made substantial and welcome commitments to support businesses and employees. However, those commitments do not fully meet the needs of Scottish businesses. There are still significant gaps in both the job retention scheme and the support for the self-employed. Last week, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, I wrote to the chancellor, outlining the changes that need to be made. I am also pressing the UK Government to urgently share data on the implementation of support schemes so that we are better able to tailor our support to businesses.

    To address Scotland’s specific needs, we announced additional funding to fill some gaps in the UK Government’s schemes. There is no doubt that we will be dealing with the uncertainty of the impacts and duration of the virus for some time. I engage regularly with businesses, business organisations and the unions and I have been building consensus in recent weeks in support of our four-step economic plan: response, reset, restart and recover.

    Initially, we have focused the majority of our efforts on the response stage. Our package of business support is now worth more than £2.2 billion: it is delivering almost £900 million-worth of rates relief and we continue to work with local authorities to progress our £1.3 billion business grants scheme. Support for the fishing industry of up to £22.5 million was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity has agreed further measures of support for the bus industry of £92 million, for ferry operators of £45.7 million and for rail franchisees of £254 million. We continue to work closely with the UK Government and Oil & Gas UK to assess what more can be done to support the oil and gas sector during its immediate and longer-term challenges.

    The Minister for Trade, Investment and Innovation has been working on procuring international and domestic supplies for the health service. On Saturday, 10 million masks arrived at Prestwick airport, and during this week 100,000 litres of sanitiser will arrive at the national health service’s central distribution warehouse. Our enterprise organisations have provided advice and support to over 178,000 companies.

    The additional £100 million that we allocated last week will be a vital lifeline for Scottish individuals and businesses to relieve hardship and protect the newly self-employed, who are ineligible for other support, and viable micro, small and medium-sized enterprises that are in distress and might be ineligible for UK Government sources of funding or not yet in receipt of the funds that they need to survive. The grant funding will be channelled through local authorities and enterprise agencies. The scheme will open for applications by the end of April and recipients will receive funds in early May. The provisional allocation will see £34 million for the newly self-employed, £20 million for creative, tourism and hospitality companies that are not in receipt of business rates relief and £45 million for firms that are vulnerable but vital to Scotland’s local and national economic foundations.

    The recently self-employed, who are excluded from the UK’s scheme but still suffering hardship, will be able to receive £2,000 grants. For creative, tourism and hospitality companies that have up to 50 employees, there will be easy access to £3,000 hardship grants or larger grants of up to £25,000 where it can be demonstrated that that amount is needed. Support and grants for pivotal SME enterprises will depend on the specific need of each enterprise, and will be developed by the relevant enterprise agency with wraparound support.

    I also recognise the challenges that are faced by the cultural sector, which is so reliant on social interaction in theatres, music venues, galleries and festivals. For artists who are facing hardship, I was pleased to announce, yesterday, that an additional £1 million will be given to Creative Scotland’s bridging bursary fund.

    Because of our decisions, thousands more businesses, including some that are in vital sectors of the economy, will benefit from support that is not available elsewhere in the UK. However, there will still be gaps, so we continue to engage with businesses on a regular basis to understand their needs and press the UK Government to deliver for them.

    The reset phase that we are now entering involves preparation to know what a safe restart will look like sector-by-sector across the economy and what needs to be done to help businesses deliver that. Together with industry sector leads and trade unions, we are developing sector-by-sector guidance to give assurance and confidence as closed businesses—at some point—reopen and restart economic activity. However, that will happen only when scientific and health advice supports it. As an example of the work that is being done, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning and the construction leadership forum have formed a cross-industry group to address the wider issues that are needed to get the industry started again following lockdown. During the coming months, our plan for economic restart and recovery will need to be managed in a safe and orderly way.

    Public sector spending on infrastructure accounts for around 50 per cent of all construction activity across Scotland. Therefore, our infrastructure investment will play a vital role in how we reset, restart and recover the economy. So far, only essential construction activity continues in the sectors that are delivering critical national infrastructure—such as primary healthcare, energy, telecommunications, transport and water. Those networks and systems are vital to our ability to keep our country moving and sustain as much economic activity as possible in the current crisis. As we all know, our digital infrastructure has proved to be an essential lifeline for people, businesses and services across Scotland.

    The restart might be phased. A slower but more effective restart will reduce the danger of a second wave of the virus, and will avoid a false restart for the economy, which would require further closures. Recovery will not be quick and the post-crisis world will be very different, with different business practices, markets and behaviours.

    Last week, I announced the establishment of an advisory group on economic recovery. I am sure that members will agree that independent expert advice is more important than ever. The group will be steered by Benny Higgins and will include Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli. The challenge that I have set for the group is to engage, analyse and listen to those who are affected by the crisis, and to bring forward solutions to enable our economy to recover quicker and better.

    Mr Higgins will lead engagement with the business community alongside the enterprise organisations. I am pleased that Lord Smith of Kelvin, who is the chair of Scottish Enterprise, has agreed to be part of the process of gathering the views on the business aspects of the economic response.

    We will go wider, with active engagement with trades unions, local government, third sector and environmental representatives, because how the economy recovers is relevant to everyone.

    I am setting a demanding timetable: proposals to Government are due by the end of June. The proposals will be taken forward alongside a range of other sources of expert policy advice as we implement the Government’s agenda to build a wellbeing economy and ensure a green recovery. The advisory group will also draw on input from the Council of Economic Advisers.

    I can announce further members of the advisory group: Dame Sue Bruce, Professor Anna Vignoles, Professor Dieter Helm, Grahame Smith and Professor John Kay.

    The Scottish Government recognises the significant impact that the response to Covid-19 is having on Scotland’s economy, businesses and people. We are doing everything that we can to mitigate that impact, respond to the crisis and reset as much economic activity as we can. At the same time, we are planning ahead to restart the economy and, in due course, to support economic recovery.

  • Jeane Freeman – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

    Jeane Freeman – 2020 Statement on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jeane Freeman, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, in the Scottish Parliament on 21 April 2020.

    It is no exaggeration to say that the effort and sacrifice of the people of Scotland in complying with the restrictions that are in place has helped to save thousands of lives. I know that it has not been easy, but I cannot stress enough how much it matters and how much it is appreciated.

    We want to be clear with the public on what the future might look like and the principles that will shape any future decisions on easing any of the restrictions that are currently in place. Later this week, we will set out the principles that will guide us, the evidence that we will use and the framework for our decision making. However, it will not—yet—be a hard and fast plan with dates, because it is simply too early to be able to set out that level of detail.

    Once again, I thank the people of Scotland for complying with the rules and for their patience and continued support. Our aims now, and as we look to shape the steps that we need to take next in order to find different ways to live with this virus, are to minimise the impact of the virus, to continue to protect our national health service and social care services and to protect lives.

    As at 9 o’clock this morning, 8,672 positive cases had been confirmed, which is an increase of 222 on the numbers reported yesterday. A total of 1,866 patients are in hospital with Covid-19, which is an increase of 57 from yesterday. Last night, a total of 166 people were in intensive care with confirmed or suspected Covid-19. That is a decrease of three since yesterday. However, in the past 24 hours, 70 more deaths have been registered of patients who have been confirmed as having Covid-19, which takes the total number of deaths in Scotland, under that measurement, to 985.

    As always, we remember that behind those numbers are human beings—fathers, daughters, mothers, cousins, friends—who all meant so much to those they have left behind. Again, I extend my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones.

    The work that our national health service has undertaken to treble intensive care unit capacity and to increase bed availability has ensured that so far, we have kept the number of cases below our capacity to cope. To ensure that that capacity is in place, we completed the construction of the NHS Louisa Jordan hospital in Glasgow over the weekend. In just over three weeks, we have planned, developed and constructed a hospital that now stands ready for patients. We continue to hope that that temporary facility will not be needed, but its creation gives us greater certainty that our NHS will have the capacity that it needs in all circumstances.

    The effort and support from the army initially and the significant efforts of front-line NHS staff, construction and support staff and SEC staff has been awe inspiring, and I am sure that everyone in the chamber shares my gratitude for their remarkable achievement, the pride with which they have worked and the continued effort that they make to be ready.

    This virus is a particular and serious threat to the most vulnerable in our society. Among those are our oldest citizens and those with underlying conditions. That means that protecting the residents of care homes is vital—just as it is during flu season and when they experience outbreaks of norovirus.

    Guidance on isolation in care homes has been established for some time and requires clear social distancing, active infection prevention and control and an end to communal activity. However, to provide clarity, today I am setting out a series of tailored additional steps that we are taking to support staff and residents.

    I have required NHS directors of public health to take enhanced clinical leadership for care homes. For the first time, NHS directors will report on their initial assessment of how each home is faring in terms of infection control, staffing, training, social distancing and testing and on the actions that they intend to take to rectify—and rectify quickly—any deficits that they identify.

    To supplement that new clinical oversight, we are establishing a national rapid action group, comprised of the key partners with operational responsibility in the area, recognising that care homes are primarily operated by independent providers. The group will receive daily updates and activate any local action that is needed to deal with issues as they emerge, as well as co-ordinate our wider package of support to the sector.

    In addition, we are equipping the Care Inspectorate for an enhanced role of assurance across the country, including greater powers to require reporting.

    Testing for staff and residents is being expanded, including testing of all symptomatic residents of care homes. Covid-19 patients who are discharged from hospital to a care home should have given two negative tests before discharge. I now expect other new admissions to care homes to be tested and isolated for 14 days, in addition to the clear social distancing measures that the guidance sets out.

    I make clear that testing is not an alternative to following the guidance on social distancing, ending communal activities and enhancing infection prevention and control. However, it can and does provide necessary assurance to the families of people who are in or being admitted to care homes, which is important. Of course, it also provides assurance to staff.

    We are working to get students and social care retirees and returners into the system as quickly as possible and we are supporting care homes to recruit additional staff. Employers now have direct access to the Scottish Social Services Council recruitment portal, to enable the quick and effective redeployment of care workers. More than 80 staff have already been matched for work in care homes or care at home under the new portal; more will join them in the coming weeks.

    I have spoken to a number of stakeholders in recent days and I thank them for their support. In particular, I am pleased that Scottish Care, which represents the majority of care homes in Scotland, agrees that this strategy and approach is the right one.

    We owe enormous gratitude to workers who are safeguarding our most vulnerable loved ones in care homes and at home.

    To ensure that staff have the personal protective equipment that they need, we are increasing care homes’ access to NHS PPE. Although care homes have their own PPE supply route, as before, we have undertaken to supplement that, recognising the additional demand on care homes at this time.

    More than 16 million items of PPE have been distributed to social care since we launched the triage helpline for the sector on 19 March. This week, we began delivery of a week’s supply of aprons, gloves and fluid-resistant surgical masks direct to every single care home, prioritising those with known outbreaks; delivery of all that will be complete by the end of this week.

    The demand for PPE is a huge global challenge, but we are doing all that we can to ensure continued supply and distribution. On top of the supply of NHS PPE to care homes, we have delivered more than 80 million items to Scottish hospitals and provided eight weeks’ supply to general practitioners and primary care in Scotland.

    Global demand as a result of the pandemic is huge and we continue to run what is now a 24/7 operation to procure the supplies that we need for Scotland. In addition, we are working on a four-nation basis with our colleagues in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    We are continuously updating our guidance in line with the science, as our understanding develops, so that workers have clarity on the type of PPE that they should wear and in which setting or scenario.

    However, I should be clear that the guidance that Public Health England issued last week on actions to undertake in the event of shortages did not apply to Scotland. We continue to have sufficient stocks of PPE. However, we continue to have to work hard, every single day, to ensure that orders arrive on time, that delivery volumes are as ordered, and that we source new suppliers into the market. As always, if staff have concerns, we need to hear about them. They can contact us through the direct dedicated PPE email address, which I will give again: covid-19-health-PPE@gov.scot.

    Work has also been continuing on increasing our NHS testing capacity, and we are on track to meet our target of 3,500 by the end of this month. By that time, every health board will have local testing capacity, and we are working across academia and the independent sector to increase that capacity further. In addition to our own efforts to increase testing, we—again—work on a four-nation basis to increase testing capacity in Scotland as part of the UK effort.

    Increasing our polymerase chain reaction testing capacity and looking forward to other emerging forms of testing—if they are validated—will be essential to plans for the future. Our work on testing now matters now, but we are also building the testing infrastructure that we will need as we move to the next phase. Our capacity to test, trace and isolate will be critical to controlling the virus.

    We are witnessing the most significant transformation of health and social care in a generation. Tripling our intensive care unit capacity, massively scaling up and extending our procurement service, creating a new hospital in three weeks, protecting hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable, and welcoming thousands of NHS and social care returners, student nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and medics to support our communities and our NHS are just some examples of what has been undertaken.

    All that is testament to the professionalism, dedication and sheer hard work of those who work in, and lead, our NHS and social care. In addition, the people of Scotland have stuck by the rules and stayed at home, maintained social distance, and sacrificed the contact with family and friends that means so much and the pleasures that they otherwise enjoy.

    That transformation and those sacrifices are impressive beyond words. However, alongside that, our NHS remains open. Services from GPs to accident and emergency and urgent care are all open and ready to care for those who need it. I say to everyone: please do not hesitate to come forward if your condition, or that of your child or family member, concerns you. If you have symptoms, seek help by contacting your GP, calling NHS24, or by attending A and E for urgent symptoms. The NHS is ready to cope—and is coping—with Covid-19, and it remains open for all those other important and urgent health issues, in relation to which it cares for people so well. The NHS and our social care services continue to scale up and to work to protect the health of people in Scotland, and we continue to do all that we can to support them.

  • Chris Philp – 2020 Statement on the Right to Rent Scheme

    Chris Philp – 2020 Statement on the Right to Rent Scheme

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Philp, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 22 April 1920.

    We welcome the Court of Appeal ruling that the Right to Rent Scheme is lawful and does not breach human rights law.

    The Right to Rent Scheme was launched to ensure only those lawfully in the country can access the private rental sector, and to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor conditions.​
    In 2016, a requirement was introduced for landlords and lettings agents in England to take reasonable steps to check they are renting only to someone who has a right to do so. This is to help make sure our immigration laws are respected. It is only fair to the many people who come to the UK legally and to British citizens that accommodation is not taken by people who are here illegally.

    Right to Rent checks are straightforward and apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens, and there are penalties for landlords who fail to complete the checks and who are later found to have rented to someone without a right to be in the UK. We have adapted the checks to make it easier for landlords to carry them out during the coronavirus outbreak. Prospective renters are now able to submit scanned documents, rather than originals, to show they have a right to rent.

    We have always been absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out these checks is unlawful. Furthermore, the Right to Rent legislation provides for codes of practice which sets out what landlords are expected to do and how they can avoid unlawful discrimination.

    We are therefore pleased that the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s ruling and found that the scheme has a legitimate policy purpose and is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

    As the Court noted, it is in the public interest that a coherent immigration policy should not only set out the criteria on which leave to remain is granted, but also discourage unlawful entry or the continued presence of those who have no right to enter or be here.

    The Right to Rent Scheme forms an important part of our immigration policy. However, as my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary said in this House, we are carefully reviewing and reflecting on the recommendations in the Lessons Learned review report, including those relating to the compliant environment. We will bring forward a detailed formal response in the next six months, as Wendy Williams recommended.

    In the meantime, the provisions passed by this House in 2014 remain in force and a full evaluation of the Right to Rent Scheme is under way. The evaluation includes a call to evidence to tenants, landlords and letting agents; a large mystery shopping exercise; and surveys of landlords. Members of the Right to Rent consultative panel provided input into the design of the evaluation.

    The Government are committed to tackling discrimination in all its forms and to having an immigration system which provides control, but which is also fair, humane and fully compliant with the law. The Court of Appeal has found that the Right to Rent Scheme is capable of being operated in a lawful way by landlords in all individual cases. We will continue to work with landlords and lettings agents to ensure that is the case.

  • Maria Eagle – 2020 Speech on Establishing a Public Advocate

    Maria Eagle – 2020 Speech on Establishing a Public Advocate

    Below is the text of the speech made by Maria Eagle, the Labour MP for Garston and Halewood, in the House of Commons on 22 April 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a public advocate to provide advice to, and act as data controller for, representatives of the deceased after major incidents.

    We have just reached the 31st anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. It has been a difficult and painful day for the families of the 96 innocent children, women and men who were unlawfully killed on that day. It has been a difficult and painful day for thousands of survivors, many still traumatised, who witnessed what happened at the ground on that day. It has been a difficult and painful day for the people of the city of Liverpool, and much of Merseyside beyond, still united in sorrow.

    The Hillsborough Family Support Group intended to hold their final public memorial service at Anfield—I and many thousands of others had planned to go—after which they had announced their intention to disband and in future to remember their lost loved ones privately in their own way. But the covid-19 pandemic has meant, quite rightly, that the final public memorial service has had to be postponed.

    As the families prepare to end their three decades of large public commemorations of the disaster, many feeling exhausted but vindicated, it is left to us, as lawmakers in this place, to ask ourselves how we can learn the many lessons of Hillsborough. How can it be that it has taken bereaved families so long to get the truth of what happened accepted officially and to get a measure of justice for their loved ones? It was 23 years before the truth was told by the Hillsborough Independent Panel and finally officially accepted. How can it be that bereaved families have had to campaign for over 30 years in the face of official indifference, and sometimes even hostility, to get truth and a measure of justice? What can we do, as lawmakers, to ensure that no other families bereaved in public disasters will ever again have to face what they have endured?

    This Bill is about learning those lessons. I would like to thank Lord Michael Wills for drafting the Bill following work that he and I did in consulting families involved in a number of disasters. It draws on his knowledge and experience of devising the mechanics of how the Hillsborough Independent Panel should work when he was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice in 2009. Without his efforts and expertise in devising its powers to obtain and process documentation, the ability of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to establish the full truth of what happened may well have been compromised, and its findings may not have been accepted officially in the way in which they were. It is a model that can work to stop things going wrong in future disasters if the correct lessons are learned, and the Bill draws upon those lessons. If enacted, it can ensure that what has happened to the Hillsborough families will never happen again to any other families bereaved in a public disaster. Its provisions will change how we handle the aftermath of such events so that we can better enable families of the deceased and injured survivors to be central to what follows.​

    Families usually want two simple things: they want to know what happened to their loved ones, and why; and they want to stop it ever happening again to any other family. This does not seem like much to ask, yet it is striking how frequently bereaved families feel let down by the official processes and legal proceedings that follow disasters. This is not just the experience of the Hillsborough families, but of others I have helped in my time as an MP. The MV Derbyshire families fought for 20 years to get to the truth that it was design flaws, not alleged poor seamanship, that led to the sinking of the bulk carrier that killed their relatives. The Marchioness families, the Lockerbie families and others have all had real misgivings about the outcomes and conduct of inquiries and other legal proceedings. Perhaps such failings are continuing. I have seen reports that the Grenfell families and survivors have similar misgivings about what is happening in the aftermath of that catastrophe. Bereaved families feel alienated and excluded from processes to which they should be central. This is a common experience.

    There are clearly issues about adequate resources for bereaved families to be properly legally represented, but this Bill seeks to prevent things from going wrong at an early stage and then having to right them many years later, and it is separate from those issues about legal aid. It proposes the establishment of an independent, adequately resourced public advocate for those bereaved in public disasters and injured survivors. The public advocate would be located in a Government Department and able to call on its resources, but crucially they would be independent of Government decision, direction or control. The public advocate would be required to act if in that person’s opinion an event had occurred that led to large-scale loss of life and involved serious health and safety issues of failure of regulation, or other events of serious concern.

    Crucially, 50% plus one or more of the representatives of the deceased and injured survivors would have to ask the advocate to act in order for them to get involved. This gives the families agency and facilitates collective solidarity among them, and it puts their collective voice at the centre of the aftermath. The public advocate would then be a representative of the interests of the bereaved and survivors collectively and act as an adviser and guide for them. The public advocate would not replace solicitors and barristers acting in legal proceedings for the bereaved and injured, but would fulfil an additional role.

    The public advocate, as a data controller, would establish a panel, like the Hillsborough Independent Panel, in consultation with representatives of the deceased and survivors, to obtain and review all documentation at a much earlier stage than happened with Hillsborough, thus facilitating transparency and disclosure by way of reports to the Lord Chancellor and to Parliament. Such transparency was key to getting to the truth of Hillsborough, but it came 23 years after the event. Getting it done sooner could prevent things from going so wrong for those affected, facilitate openness and establish the truth at an early stage; and the families would be in the driving seat. This would be an important improvement to public policy in reaction to the frequent examples of things going wrong in the aftermath of public disasters. It is a simple and relatively inexpensive measure.​

    In the Queen’s Speech of 2017, the May Government promised to establish such an office, but nothing has been done beyond a consultation in December 2018. The results of that consultation have not yet been published, and I do not know what the current Government’s intention is, because I have only received holding replies to parliamentary questions about this since December 2018.

    The role of the public advocate set out in that consultation document is very different from that envisaged by this Bill. The public advocate envisaged by the Government consultation would not be independent. They would not be a data controller, they would not be able to act at the behest of families but would be directed by the Secretary of State, and they would not have the power to establish and appoint independent panels like the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

    I hope that Ministers will commit to establishing the role as envisaged by this Bill, because unless families have more agency and the public advocate is truly independent, it will not work. To be effective, the public advocate needs independence, the confidence of the families and survivors, and the ability to establish, as a data controller, an independent panel to require the production of documents and to report findings outside of the legal proceedings. These are the essential elements that will prevent the aftermath of future disasters from being made more traumatic for families and survivors, and that will put us on the path to preventing the Hillsborough families’ experience from ever being repeated.

    I feel well placed, after more than 30 years of knowing some of the Hillsborough families, and after 24 years of representing some of them as my constituents in this House, to promote this Bill as close as possible, in parliamentary terms, to the 31st anniversary of the disaster. I am proud that so many Merseyside MPs, who would have wished to have been here today, have agreed to sponsor the Bill and to support it in other ways, because Merseyside MPs understand the extent of the damage and the trauma that has resulted from Hillsborough.

    May I close by saluting the courage and heroic persistence and indefatigability of the families of those unlawfully killed at Hillsborough? I know many of them. They are exceptional people—not least because they would deny that they are exceptional. By the sheer force of their determination to defend the reputations of their lost loved ones, to get truth, justice and accountability for those who were killed, to bring ease and peace to the traumatised survivors, they have won through. And backed by the people of the Liverpool city region, they have shown up the great injustices perpetrated on the innocent by the indifference and hostility of some of our official processes. I believe that this Bill, if enacted, will go a significant way towards preventing what has happened to them from ever happening to any other families in the future—something they fervently wish to see. As they end the big public commemorations on the anniversary of the disaster, it would be a fitting legacy for their efforts if they could help to ensure that what has happened to them never happens again to families who are bereaved in public disasters. This Bill would, I believe, do that. I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2020 Speaker’s Statement on a Virtual Parliament

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2020 Speaker’s Statement on a Virtual Parliament

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 22 April 2020.

    Yesterday, the House agreed to a motion to allow Members to participate virtually in proceedings of the House, for the first time in 700 years of history of the House of Commons. I would like to welcome everyone, both Members joining us remotely from their constituencies up and down the UK, and Members here in the Chamber, to the first hybrid sitting of the House of Commons. I thank hon. Members who are present in the Chamber for continuing to observe the guidance that has been issued about social distancing, in relation not only to each other, but to the staff of the House who are in the Chamber, and indeed myself.

    Before we begin, I want to place on record that parliamentary privilege applies on the same basis to all Members participating, regardless of whether they are contributing virtually or are present in the Chamber. Also, of course, the same rules and courtesies apply to Members participating virtually, as far as is practicable, as they do to the Members participating physically. Members present in the Chamber should not rise in their places to catch my eye but wait to be called, although they should then stand to speak—if they are in the Chamber.

    We will begin with questions to the Secretary of State for Wales. I will call each Question and ask the Secretary of State to respond before calling the Member. I first call the Minister to answer the substantive Question tabled by Marco Longhi, whose birthday it is today.