HC Deb 23 May 1972 vol 837 cc1395-404

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter (Dunfermline Burghs)

I raise this matter on the Adjournment with some diffidence, for I recognise the sociological interest which surrounds the quality of prison life. I would not deny that the treatment of prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland should be humane and that a substantial period of their stay in prison must contain an element of rehabilitation. Many of them are not hardened criminals in the sense of the word but simply people who have suffered a momentary aberration which cost them dear in terms of loss of freedom. A number of them are weak and inadequate and are unable to cope with the many stresses and strains encountered in modern society.

Hence, the reason why I appreciate their need for training and rehabilitation. I also understand why reorganisation of work in prisons is necessary from time to time. The argument I put forward is an endeavour to show the Under-Secretary of State responsible for prisons in Scotland that outside industry is becoming acutely aware of the unfair disadvantage suffered by some firms in competition with prison-manufactured goods.

A few weeks ago my Question to the Under-Secretary of State revealed that there were 2,400 inmates in Scottish prisons engaged in the production of items of goods manufactured also by outside industry. The annual value of this production in the year ending 31st March, 1971, was approximately £850,000. The work carried out was mainly on textile goods and several other items. It is with textile production that I am concerned.

Some time ago a production director of a firm complained to me about a loss of orders due to half of a previous contract going to Her Majesty's prisons. I also had the same complaint from the sales director of a group of companies of which my local firm was a part. There is a genuine feeling that the competition will become more severe as the years go on.

In the 1970 Report on Prisons in Scotland, the value of production rose over the previous year and it is obvious from the answer to my Question that in 1971 the amount was very much higher. It is quoted in the 1970 report as follows: That with the progressive installation of new machinery and the provision of more spacious working areas the upward trend in output will be maintained". The report also stated: The textile industry was expanded by the opening of a further workshop at Perth". The value of goods and services supplied in the year to 31st March, 1970, was £660,000. Comparing the year with the following year, it means that there was an increase of almost £200,000.

That brings me to the question of pricing policies. My information is that prisons tender for contracts to Government Departments and to private customers. In the case of the public sector, however, a system of priority operates for prison output in the following way. If the prison fails to tender the lowest price and thereby loses the contract, it has a priority option to supply as much as it can at the lowest contract price. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether such a practice is operating in Scotland.

The Home Office recently intimated future policy with regard to prison industries. The Government supported the objective of making the industries economically viable and to improve the quality and availability of industrial work experience in prisons. At the same time, it was the intention of the Home Office to facilitate improved productivity and it was currently planning a considerable expansion in the scale of prison industries' operations.

There has been a progressive growth in the total turnover of prison industries over the past two decades. It is anticipated that the turnover will reach £20 million by 1980. It is natural that Scottish industrialists are becoming concerned about the future industrial role of Scottish prisons, particularly when the plan envisages that a growing share of the output of prison industries is likely to he sold to the private sector.

The production manager of Jeltex Ltd. in Dunfermline and the President of the Dunfermline Chamber of Commerce see a continuation of this policy as a growing threat to textile firms. One example given by Mr. Leiser of Jeltex Ltd. demonstrated that in 1964 the firm had a contract to provide jackets for the National Coal Board. He claims that the firm had never fallen down on delivery, quality or price. Suddenly the firm lost half the £24,000 contract to Her Majesty's prisons. He further stated that the firm knew for a fact that the price quoted by the prisons for the jackets barely covered the cost of the material, never mind labour and overheads. For the price to be 17p below the price of Jeltex Ltd. for a garment costing £2 he felt was incredible. The prisoners are paid pocket-money, which makes a big difference for a start. Jeltex Ltd. felt that prisons were using cheap labour to undercut outside firms unfairly.

I have tried to deal with the general problem, on which I have not enough information. The subject is not one which is frequently aired. There is a reticence about raising the question because it is appreciated that, if people have to work in prison, it is as well for them to do useful work. However, I have raised a specific aspect of the problem—the case of the Dunfermline firm has been the basis of my complaint. I also know that the Dundee jute workers protested against the award of a large sack contract to Her Majesty's prisons.

There is high unemployment, and people are worried about future job security. The Dunfermline area has been badly hit, a number of factories having Gone out of existence and others having to reduce manpower because of lack of orders. The intention to expand prison industries enlarges these fears, and there is a likelihood that the trade unions will take a greater interest in the problem as more and more workers voice their fears. The sociological considerations of this aspect of prison life are manifestly correct, but on the other hand it would be wise to take heed of the developing situation wherein people are afraid for their jobs and employers are concerned about their business prospects.

Will the Minister answer the following questions? First, does he think that the fears expressed by me in the debate are real or unfounded? Second, what assurances can he give to employers and workers that the future industrial policies of Her Majesty's prisons will not in any way create an element of unfair competition with outside industry? Third, is he prepared to change course if sufficient evidence comes along that certain firms are being adversely affected by contracts going to Her Majesty's prisons?

In conclusion, the subject is a difficult one to discuss, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that frankness on all aspects of it is the essence which will bring satisfaction to all concerned.

12.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) for the responsible way in which he has dealt with this subject tonight. He mentioned a certain reticence in discussing these matters, but I assure him that I have no reticence whatever and consider that he has done well to air the subject. Only by airing the subject and getting a better understanding by industry and the public of what happens in prisons can we solve the problem of dealing with the rehabilitation of prisoners and see how prisons fit into the whole context of industrial and social life.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to answer his points. He raised a number of real questions which he summarised for me, and I hope I shall be able to answer them. If there are any other points that arise when he thinks further about the matter, I shall be pleased to deal with them also.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I would make clear that this concern is shared equally by the Scottish Office. We are mindful of the kind of problems to which he has drawn attention tonight.

The prison service today is confronted with a difficult task involving the custody, control and rehabilitation of inmates. If this is to be achieved, even in the smallest degree, I am sure that nobody would suggest that the mere locking up of a prisoner is sufficient. With the high inmate numbers with which we have to cope and the problems that this creates in relation to discipline and control within penal establishments, it is vital to keep inmates usefully occupied. This is not merely to avoid the very real dangers of indiscipline through soul-sapping boredom, but as a social therapy in itself.

The primary objective of prison industries is to create in inmates the habit of doing useful work under conditions and at a tempo comparable to outside industry. We believe that this is the best way to equip them for their normal place in society when eventually they are released. Rehabilitation must not be merely a pious hope to which we all nod with unthinking acquiescence. Rehabilitation is something positive and requires considerable thought, planning and effort by all concerned in an attempt to devise ways of enhancing the confidence of prisoners, of instilling habits of work and, where possible, of imparting skills to enable the released prisoner to find a job to suit his capabilities. It is only by doing all this that the prison service can discharge the duty placed on it by Parliament; that duty is to fit the prisoner to lead a good and useful life or release.

We have progressed considerably from the days when the traditional forms of employment for prisoners were unimaginative and uninspiring. We are now reaching a stage where we can see the provision of work as a civilising element for those in need of training. It is a point to which we must pay increasing attention if we are to secure any measure of success in the important matter of rehabilitation. We must try to achieve variety, scope, interest and efficiency under the constraints of security in a prison environment while bearing as close a resemblance as possible to the sort of conditions the inmate will meet eventually in the outside world.

Having set out the background, I think it is important at this stage to set out as clearly as possible the size of the problem when viewed against the unemployment situation in Scotland as a whole and particularly in relation to the hon. Member's constituency.

The latest available figures for last year show that the value of production in Scottish penal establishments was £1,040,000. Roughly one-third of the total was accounted for by items for use in penal establishments themselves. They comprise such items as prisoners' clothing, bedding, prison furniture, and so on. All but 6 per cent. of the remaining production was for other Government Departments, and the balancing 6 per cent. represented sales to the private sector. The actual sales to the private sector are a very small proportion of the total production from prisons.

The latest available figures for Scotland as a whole in respect of those industries in which Scottish prisons are involved show that the prison contribution amounted to only 0.06 per cent. of the total value of output. To put that in slightly more meaningful terms, it is the same as £6 in every £10,000 of output. When we allow for the fact that £2 of the £6 is consumed by the prisoners themselves, we are left with a figure of very insignificant proportions.

Notwithstanding this minute trading position, we are always mindful of the need to keep our marketing policy closely in step with that of outside manufacturers, and we achieve this in two basic ways.

I might say in passing that in setting the background and showing the value of output of the prison service and how small a proportion is released to private buyers outside, I do not minimise the fact that while 6 per cent. may not be very great when set against the total, it may mean a great deal to the individual firms affected by it. I do not belittle that point.

Mr. Hunter

The chief complaint of my constituent is that the type of article that he produces is considered to be at the unsophisticated end of textile production, and he feels that it is the sort of work which is easily done by people in prison.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall elaborate on it later in my remarks. However, we are constantly seeking new ways, including seeking the co-operation of industry and commerce to suggest possible new ways, in which we can produce goods and do constructive work which is not in direct competition and causing difficulty of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.

To return to this question of keeping our marketing policy in step with outside manufacturers, we try to achieve this in two basic ways. Here I come specifically to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's points.

First, the costing of items manufactured for outside customers is based on the material costs, allowances being made for the higher than usual wastage in prison industries, plus a labour charge calculated at the current outside hourly rate for the trade concerned. I hope that that will put to rest the view that it is set at "pocket-money" levels. It is not. The hourly rates charged are taken from those published from time to time by the Department of Employment, taking into account the time that it would take a skilled tradesman to do the same job using modern equipment. To the total of these are added successively machinery charges, a percentage for overheads, a notional figure for national insurance contributions, a figure representing a profit margin and, finally, where appropriate, purchase tax. The aim is to arrive at a figure aproximating to the current market price. I think that that demonstrates that we base our prices on what happens in the outside world and not simply on the type of cost that we encounter in prisons. I believe that competition, such as it is, is therefore square and above board.

I appreciate that that begs the question of how do we know that the market price which we have calculated in this way is fair and representative for the product or industry at any time. In most instances we know what the market price is because of the priority supply arrangements for sales to Government Departments and because of the contracts that we have with other Government Departments. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the priority supply arrangements apply. I confirm that they do and because they apply they give access to knowledge of what the market price is of the goods that we are producing. We have a good idea of the current market prices of comparable products. We know the price of the materials which we have to buy and we can work out what the conversion cost is to outside industry.

Secondly—and this, too, will give the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of assurance—we try to make sure that no individual product or industry is allowed to attract an undue share of the market. This is important and I hope that it will assure those who have fears that we take an undue share of the market in which we are interested. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance, which I hope he will pass on, that officials of my Prisons Division will be prepared to discuss with any manufacturers or representatives questions of mutual concern about prison production. In any approach that is made to us I shall do all that I can to facilitate direct discussions. This is one way in which we can perhaps allay fears which may or may not be justified and it may also help to identify new ways in which we can move forward and reorganise things in a way which will meet the wishes of industry. We recognise the need for orderly marketing in relation to forward planning and development and we are prepared to play our part in achieving confidence and stability in the industrial market place.

I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's general points and questions, and I should now like to deal more specifically with the questions raised by him about the firm of Jeltex. I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the contract in question was with the Home Department and not specifically with the Prison Service in Scotland. It would, therefore, be more correct for the Home Department to answer the hon. Gentleman, but I have taken the precaution of making inquiries about this contract.

It appears that the Prison Department of the Home Office was asked to quote to the National Coal Board for the supply of donkey jackets. As a result of its tender it was awarded part of the contract and it is my understanding—though this may conflict with other information—the remainder of the contract went to Remploy.

The contract was awarded directly by the National Coal Board—and this is important—and the priority suppliers procedure was not invoked in this contract. If, therefore, there was any feeling of unfairness about the procedure let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the priority suppliers procedure was not invoked on this contract, and that it was awarded directly. This means that the Prison Department of the Home Office was awarded the contract solely by the fact of having submitted the lowest price in competition with suppliers from the private sector.

In arriving at the price per jacket the Home Office was mindful of the Confederation of British Industries' undertaking on voluntary price restraint which meant that the price it offered was no more than 5 per cent. above its earlier price for this article. It may be therefore that Jeltex who originally shared this contract and offered a price comparable with that of the Home Office increased its price by more than 5 per cent. on this occasion. I cannot be definitive in answering the hon. Gentleman, but I merely explain what I have understood about the Home Office contract.

I do not believe that there can be any question that the Home Office enjoyed any advantage in tendering for this contract, nor that its practice differed from that of the ordinary commercial company in any way.

Moving from that to the question of jute workers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, I must tell him that I am conscious of the concern felt on this issue. Again I am slightly diffident about answering, because it affected the Home Office. However, the jute industry in Dundee voiced concern about this matter. My understanding in that particular case was that the concern was not so much the fact of the prison industries carrying out the work but that on that occasion the prison industry might he using materials in the contract which were in short supply at the time because of the Bangladesh and Pakistan jute supply situation and that, by virtue of this contract, it was denying raw materials which would otherwise be used to maintain employment in Dundee. Though this was essentially a different problem from the one concerning the hon. Member, the anxiety of my Department and of the Home Office to meet the problems of industry, insofar as is practicable in relation to our other aims, is demonstrated by the fact that on that occasion the contract was withdrawn because we did not want to create particular difficulties in view of the anxieties voiced. So although this was a different problem, it demonstrates our concern to meet the wishes of industry so far as is practicable.

In conclusion, whilst I have answered most of the questions raised, the one question I have not answered is about the policy we propose to follow in the future. I think that I have clarified the position on the background in the past. However, before I deal with my final point, I pay tribute to the co-opera- tion we receive generally from industry and the trade unions in these matters.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress is very helpful and appreciates the problems we face in the need for rehabilitative and constructive work in prison industry. My officials are very glad at any time to meet individuals, firms or trade associations. In fact, my officials are meeting one trade association on a matter of wooden pallets in Glasgow tomorrow. This demonstrates our preparedness to meet them in cases of difficulty. Equally, we are glad to meet the CBI or the STUC at any time that they wish to discuss wider aspects of this matter.

But in relation to the course of action we should follow in the future, I should not like hon. Members to take away the impression that, having reached a particular standard and mixture of industrial production, we are content simply to allow things to move along exactly as they are, adjusting merely to changes in numbers of inmates as time goes on. On the contrary, within the context of our very small share of the market as a whole and of any individual market, we feel that there is genuinely further scope for development aimed at creating more efficient and effective production within prisons.

Therefore, in order to achieve our overall aims of rehabilitation, we intend to continue exploring ways of reorganising our prison industries, although I give the hon. Gentleman and others in the House who are interested the assurance that in doing so, we shall certainly bear in mind what has been said in the debate tonight.

I repeat my assurance that at any stage we would he glad to discuss with individuals, individual firms, trade associations or trade union organisations any specific or general difficulties as they arise.

Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the debate. I hope that I have helped to clarify the position and have given him assurances about the future, although I should certainly want to reserve our freedom of action in trying to develop this work within the prison service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.