Tag: Speeches

Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and so on. And then it goes on

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

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

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

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

The Advisory Committee?

Mr. MacDONALD

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

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

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

February 16, 2022
Jack Jones – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 16, 2022
Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Russia Not Attending OSCE Meeting

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

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

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

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

February 16, 2022
Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and, most importantly, may

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

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

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

February 15, 2022
Vernon Coaker – 2022 Speech on the Nationality and Borders Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“unless there are good reasons”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 15, 2022
Robert Carr – 1972 Statement on the Coal Industry and the Wilberforce Report

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

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

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

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

“and do not apply in industry generally”—

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

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

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

“should be given exceptional national treatment”

and that

“a definite and substantial adjustment”

in their wage levels was called for.

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

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

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

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

The Wilberforce Report emphasises that inflation

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

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

February 14, 2022
William Whitelaw – 1972 Statement on Mass Lobby of Coal Miners

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

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

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

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

Mr. Michael Foot

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

Mr. Whitelaw

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

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

February 14, 2022
Edith Summerskill – 1972 Speech on Whittingham Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 14, 2022
Keith Joseph – 1972 Statement on Whittingham Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 14, 2022
Edward Argar – 2022 Speech on Ambulance Services

The speech made by Edward Argar, the Minister for Health, in the House of Commons on 10 February 2022.

Reflecting the rest of the week, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing this important debate. In the same spirit, this is rather nice; it is like déjà vu: he used to shadow me at that Dispatch Box and in Committee. It is a pleasure to respond to his debate on this occasion.

However, I must say that responding to the hon. Gentleman is a pleasure slightly tempered by caution on my part, because I know the depths of his expertise on this subject after his many years shadowing the Minister for Health—I think he shadowed my predecessors as well. He has great depth of knowledge in this space. He is and has been a notable advocate for our ambulance service and what it needs, and he looks forensically into those issues. I also know that he is a diligent reader of The BMJ, the Health Service Journal and various other excellent trade and specialist publications. It is a genuine pleasure to respond to him on this extremely important issue. It is a shame that the way in which the House allocates debates means that this is the last debate of the day, so there are few Members in the Chamber for it, because it is important. However, those we have in the Chamber are quality, and I look both at the shadow Minister—sorry, the former shadow Minister—and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, ambulance services have faced extraordinary pressures during the pandemic. I am sure that the House will join me and the shadow Minister—the former shadow Minister; by force of habit, I keep calling him the shadow Minister. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always agreed, but we have been as one in paying tribute to all those who work in our ambulance services up and down the country. They have done an amazing job over the past two years, during the pandemic, to the very best of their ability. Of course, they do that amazing job day in, day out; irrespective of pandemics, they always do everything they can to support those who need them.

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that the pandemic has placed significant demands on the service. In January 2022, it answered more than 800,000 calls. That is an increase of 11% on January 2020 and is one of the factors placing significant pressures on ambulance services, the wider NHS and the A&E departments to which they will take people when they feel that there is a clinical need. Although 999 calls tend to highlight the demand related to more serious medical conditions, many ambulance services are also responsible for 111 calls, which, in December last year, saw an increase of 15.5% compared with December 2019.

I use those statistics to illustrate the demand pressures, but I understand that behind those numbers, in every case, lies a human story—someone in need of care, someone worried and anxious, with friends and family anxious for them—so before I seek to go into the reasons, statistics and our plans and support, I want to say that I am sorry for patients who have suffered the impact of those service pressures. I want to be very clear that patients should expect and receive the highest standards of service and care.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted some specific examples, including the case of Bina Patel. He is right that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has raised that with me. I have asked for full information because I want to get back to her with as full an answer as I can, and I hope that he can convey that to her, if he speaks to her before I do. I am fully aware of her correspondence raising this on behalf of the family.

Let me turn to ambulance response times and the reasons sitting behind some of the pressures. The ambulance service is facing a range of challenges that are impacting on its performance. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with many of them, including the impact, still, of infection prevention and control measures not only in the ambulance service but particularly in A&E departments and wider acute clinical settings. Higher instances of delays in the handover of ambulance patients into A&E as a result of some of those factors, which I will turn to, are therefore leading to ambulances waiting for longer in queues and not being as swiftly out and about on the road and able to respond to calls. So there are knock-on effects there.

One of the key challenges, which the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, remains the question of flow through an A&E and through a hospital. I am referring to the flow of patients out of ambulances into the A&E, who are then able to be treated in the A&E and discharged, hopefully, or who are then, in some cases, able to be admitted to a bed in a hospital ward. To do that, we have to see discharges continue of patients who no longer meet the criteria to reside because they have recovered sufficiently, and the national discharge taskforce has done a huge amount of work on addressing that challenge.

In recent months, we have seen the combined pressures of winter—the hon. Gentleman and I are familiar with those on an annual basis—and the impact of the omicron variant on the number of hospitalisations, which have not been as high as many feared and predicted, thankfully, but which have still had a significant impact on hospital beds. The combination of those factors, coupled with a high level of workforce sickness absence rates, including through positive covid tests—particularly over recent months with omicron—has created pressures that we would not expect to be systemic or built into the system. That partly reflects longer term pressures, and I will move on to what we are doing to address those, but a large element of it is down to the specific circumstances of the past winter.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the support in place to improve services, and asked what we are going to do about it, and what is being done to address these issues. He is true to form from when he shadowed me, as he will always set out the challenge and ask me what I am going to do or am doing about it, rightly holding the Government to account. Because of the pressures I mentioned we have put in place strong support to improve ambulance response times, including a £55 million investment in staffing capacity to manage winter pressures to the end of March. All trusts are receiving part of that funding, which will increase call handling and operational response capacity, boosting staff numbers by around 700.

NHS England has strengthened its health and wellbeing support for ambulance trusts, recognising the pressure of the job on those working in the ambulance services, with £1.75 million being invested to support the wellbeing of frontline ambulance staff during the current pressures. NHS England and Improvement is undertaking targeted support for the most challenged hospitals, to improve their patient handover processes, helping ambulances to get swiftly back out on the road. That is focused on the most challenged hospital sites where delays are predominantly concentrated, with the 29 acute trusts operating those sites being responsible for more than 60% of the 60 million-plus handover delays nationally. That is targeted support for trusts that have particular challenges, either from the current situation or where there are underlying issues that we need to resolve.

There is capital investment of £4.4 million to keep an additional 154 ambulances on the road this winter, and a £75 million investment in NHS 111 to boost staff numbers by just over 1,000, boosting call taking and clinical advice capacity that will better help patients at home, and better help triage those who genuinely need an ambulance and those who can be treated safely in a different context. There is continuous central monitoring and support for ambulance trusts from NHS England’s national ambulance co-ordination centre, and we have also made significant long-term investments in the ambulance workforce. The number of NHS ambulance staff and support staff has increased by 38% since July 2010.

More broadly, alongside the ambitious plan set out by the Government earlier this week, showing how we will invest the significant additional resources in outcomes for patients, just over a year ago we invested £450 million in A and E departments, to help mitigate the impact through increased capacity of infection prevention and control measures. I have regular direct meetings about discharge rates, and what we can do further to improve the flow of patients through hospital trusts within NHS England, with members of the taskforce on that.

I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those measures have had an impact, and we are seeing improvements in response times from the peak of the pressures in December. Performance data for January, published today, shows significant improvement against all response time categories. Performance for category 1 calls—the most serious calls, classified as life-threatening—has largely been maintained at around nine minutes on average over the past several months, and improved to eight minutes and 31 seconds in the latest figures. That is despite a 19% increase in the number of incidents in that category compared with December 2019. Average responses to category 2 calls improved by more than 15 minutes compared with December, and the 90th centile responses to category 3 calls by more than two hours.

We recognise that that is welcome progress, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree, but there is much further to go to recover fully from the pandemic’s impact on response times and to sustain that improvement. We welcome the service’s hard work and dedication and pay tribute to it for making those changes and delivering the significant improvements on which I am updating the hon. Gentleman.

Justin Madders

As always, the Minister is being courteous and comprehensive in his response. Will he comment on the concern expressed earlier about patients being told, when visited by the service, that they needed to go to hospital but should find their own way there? That is extremely worrying, and we should be clear that it is not what we expect to happen.

Edward Argar

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I keep feeling tempted to say shadow Minister; he is a shadow Minister but he is no longer my shadow—for that point. He is right that when people ring 999 they should be given the appropriate clinical advice on whether they need to go to hospital, and if they do, an ambulance should be sent. I suspect that in individual cases a call handler may have made a tough clinical decision about the fastest way to get someone to hospital given the availability of ambulances, but the hon. Gentleman is right that if someone rings 999 and their condition is clinically deemed to require an ambulance and swift transfer to hospital, they should be able to expect an ambulance to come, assist them and take them to hospital.

At a time when the NHS is facing unprecedented demand, ambulance services are absorbing some of the increase in pressure. They are treating more people over the phone and finding other ways to reduce pressure in a clinically safe way. With clinical support in control rooms, the ambulance service is closing around 11% of 999 calls with clinical advice over the phone. That is far more than the 6.5% achieved in January 2020 and saves valuable ambulance resources for response to genuinely more urgent clinical needs.

Let me say a little about North West Ambulance Service, if that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he and the hon. Member for City of Chester take a close interest in their local ambulance service. Our support and investment has benefited the North West Ambulance Service. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston’s local trust received £6.2 million of funding, which it has used to increase its workforce for operational and contact centre teams. The trust is also engaged with regional NHS England and Improvement and commissioning teams to develop a six-point winter plan that seeks to address six key areas throughout the winter period. As it starts to get a little warmer and the daffodils start to come out, it is tempting for people to think that winter has passed, but winter pressures in the NHS can continue into late February and occasionally a bit beyond. I wanted to add that caveat.

Three systems-led initiatives focus on the reduction of hospital handover times, the improvement of pathways for patients with mental health presentations and ensuring that alternatives to emergency departments—including access to primary care and other non-emergency-department pathways—are available to North West Ambulance Service in a timely and responsive manner.

Hospital handover delays continue to challenge the North West Ambulance Service footprint. Through its Every Minute Matters collaboration, which began three years ago, the trust has been working with other hospital trusts on improvements by working with senior leadership teams in hospital trusts to ensure there is a shared understanding of the risks of handover delays and a lack of ambulance resources to respond to patients in the community, to revisit action cards for operational commanders and, crucially, to recognise and thank staff for their continued reporting of delays and willingness to highlight problems to their managers or to the trust.

The trust’s strategic winter plan has been activated and includes details of the measures in place to handle winter pressures and mitigate the effects of increased demand and a loss of capacity. The plan is comprehensive and covers a wide range of topics and details on the preparation for various scenarios. It includes several continuous improvement initiatives for support during the winter period.

In summary, North West Ambulance Service is increasing its double-crewed ambulance capacity in line with winter funding arrangements, reducing conveyance to emergency departments and reducing the number of lost operational hours caused by day-to-day operational challenges. The trust has already seen significant improvements in the number of patients managed effectively through telephone advice, which helps free up ambulances to be deployed to where they are most needed. The trust has recruited additional paramedics and emergency medical technicians and upskilled its ambulance care assistants to blue light driving standard, thereby enabling the trust to deploy 269 additional frontline staff by the end of December.

I close by reiterating the Government’s commitment to support the ambulance service. We retain regular contact with ambulance services, trusts and those delivering on the frontline to help to ensure that patients and the ambulance service receive the care and support that they need. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing this matter to the House.

February 12, 2022