HC Deb 17 June 1966 vol 729 cc1894-7

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Dame Joan Vickers

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to this Clause, because it is an extremely harsh one. It says that a person persistently refusing or neglecting to maintain himself shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or three months in prison or both. When a person gets to this stage, I do not think that this Clause will help in any way. I understood that the present Home Secretary was reviewing the question of people being sent to prison for being drunk or in debt, and so on, and that he hopes to bring forward a Bill on the subject later this Session.

I believe that there are over 30,000 people in prison This Clause will add to the problem, because most people concerned have a low I.Q., and are not able to reinstate themselves as is suggested. I do not argue that people should get out of their personal responsibilities, but the Clause refers to a person who "persistently" refuses to maintain himself. If a person does that, he cannot be of normal intelligence. He would have the money for a fine and would, therefore, face a sentence. But I should have thought that it was not prison to which he should be sent, but to a hostel, or a training centre for rehabilitation so that he might regain his self-respect.

We all know people of this type, who have given up all form of responsibility towards themselves and their dependants. But sending them to prison will not give them any further initiative or help in their earnings. I hope that on Report the right hon. Lady will do away with such a harsh sentence as shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both. This seems to be an unfortunate suggestion.

As I mentioned just now, one does not want to rid an individual of any form of personal responsibility, but I cannot see that sending such a person to prison will help in this case. Perhaps I could refer again to the Race Relations Bill. It was agreed in that Bill that there should be conciliation measures rather than sending people to prison or fining them. Surely in this case, we should try rehabilitation measures rather than prison or fines.

Subsection (2) says: For the purposes of this section a person shall not be deemed to refuse or neglect to maintain himself or any other person by reason only of anything done or omitted in futherance of a trade dispute. I agree with that, but this seems a very odd subsection to put into this Clause. It seems to have no relevance. I suppose that one has to safeguard this circumstance, but I should have thought that it needed a different cause, as it relates to a different subject.

I hope that the right hon. Lady will make the sentence less harsh. There must be certain measures, I suppose, to deter an individual, but I should have thought that once a person reaches the state outlined in the Clause, in which he … persistently refuses or neglects to maintain himself", this was a time when he should be sent to a hostel or a rehabilitation centre and certainly not to prison. I do not see that prison will encourage him to maintain himself or to look after himself or his dependants better in future.

The result of putting such a person in prison would be to decrease his sense of responsibility for himself and his family. I have often found that these people do not even make contact with their families when they come out of prison. They have got rid of their responsibilities, and they think this is fine, and they revert to what has been their normal way of life in the past. I hope that if the right hon. Lady can remove from the Bill the proposals for imprisonment or a fine, she will at least take out the words "or both". None of these people will be able to pay £100.

Mr. Pentland

The whole Committee is fully aware of the deep concern felt by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) about all these wider aspects of social problems. She has revealed this concern many times in the House, and now she has very properly once again taken the opportunity to draw attention to these matters.

I assure the hon. Lady that most of the treatment which she has suggested will already have been attempted with these people long before we deal with them under this Clause. It has been attempted continually with the kind of people with whom we are concerned. A small minority of them—not a very large number—are quite adequate to look after themselves and their wives and families and quite capable of fulfilling their obligations. They are not all capable of doing so and we accept much that the hon. Lady said, but much that she suggested is being attempted all along the line and much work is done to help these people. But the Clause must remain in the Bill to deal with those who could fulfil their responsibilities and obligations to their wives and families but will not do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman

The only new Clause selected is new Clause No. 3 in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger).