HC Deb 28 October 1980 vol 991 cc339-55

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the detention of persons who may lawfully be detained in penal institutions in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  1. (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and
  2. (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

10.39 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Clause 7 of part II provides: There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

  1. (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act; and
  2. (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act."
We have not heard from the Government any clear statement of what precisely is involved. A reply was given by the Home Secretary at Question Time yesterday in which he said that, if the claim of the prison officers were to be settled in full, it would cost about £10 million now and a further £3 million a year in the future. The right hon. Gentleman added: On the basis of the pay and allowances I have described, that seems to be—"[Official Report, 27 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 51.] At that point, one of my hon. Friends said "Peanuts". The point is that we do not know precisely the amount that is likely to be paid out as a result of the Bill. It is my contention that the amount to be paid as a result of the Bill will be much higher than any settlement made with the Prison Officers' Association. As my hon. Friend said, it is peanuts. The amount is £10 million and £3 million a year in the future.

Mr, Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)

Does not the case become even stronger when one takes account of the fact that the prison officers have asked that the matter—this has been put time and again to Ministers in the debate—should be sent back to the May committee for a recommendation? The POA has said that it is not necessarily expecting the whole of the back pay, which is the bulk of the £10 million to which my hon. Friend refers. The figure would be likely to be £2 million, £3 million, £4 million, or £5 million at the most.

Mr. Heffer

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The figures I mentioned were those given by the Home Secretary. Even if those were correct, they would be a small amount in relation to the problem with which we are dealing. We do not know exactly the amount that will be paid under the financial provisions. No estimate of any kind has been made by the Government. They have not so far given a figure. What will it be? How much will the Army cost if brought in?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

It occurred to me that it could be a very small figure, especially if Lord Vestey's accountant were let loose on it. It would get down to about 10 quid.

Mr. Heffer

I take the point. Some hon. Members should perhaps have Lord Vestey's accountant. Perhaps our tax would not be as high as it is.

In all seriousness—I am being very serious—we have not heard any figure from the Government. The Government should say what is likely to be involved in the payment under the provisions of clause 7. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) rightly said that the prison officers wanted to take the matter back to a sub-committee of the May committee as a form of arbitration. The final settlement might be very little.

I draw the attention of the House to the letter sent by Mr. John Bartell, vice-chairman of the Prison Officers' Association, to the editor of The Guardian on 29 September. The letter is relevant to the finances involved. He said: There are two claims in dispute, one of which May refused to make a ruling on, the other arose out of the ruling he made on a different submission. Two claims are involved. They are claims 16 and 17—to use the prison service terminology. One is a general claim and the other is the Liverpool claim.

The Prison Officers' Association has made clear throughout that it is prepared to accept arbitration, even if the arbitrators go against it. That should be stressed. The association has pointed out that Lord McCarthy was the chairman of an arbitration set-up which found against the association but it accepted his decision without argument. It is saying now that it will do the same.

The Government ask the House to accept provisions the cost of which we do not know. We do not know the amount involved. It could be well above the £13 million or lower estimates. Yet the prison officers have said that they will accept independent arbitration without question.

The Government are acting irresponsibly. It would be cheaper for the nation for the Government to sit round the table with the Prison Officers' Association and settle the matter than to engage in confrontation which could cost enormous sums. I urge the Government to think again.

A letter dated 29 August from the Prison Officers' Association to its branches reads: The NEC believes that the association has justice on its side in seeking arbitration on the two claims referred to. Equally, it believes that the Home Office will be hard pressed to answer the association's case in each such forum. I draw the House's attention to The Daily Telegraph. I am not renowned for supporting its ideas, but on occassions flashes of wisdom appear in its editoral columns. On 15 October The Daily Telegraph stated: It is not political penetration which has driven them"— that is, the prison officers— to militancy nor entirely the growing burdens they have to bear as the consequence of over-crowding, under-manning, and the continuing use of antique premises. Many of them are convinced that the system which they are required to administer has become from the prisoner's point of view, no less than from that of his warder's, a social scandal. It then continues on the financial question. It says: Mr. Whitelaw is right to be chary of submitting pay disputes in the public sector to arbitration; but the prison officers' demand (which appears to be, essentially, equal pay for equal work) must command some sympathy. The Government must not forget either its commitment to exempt law enforcement, like national defence, as far as possible from the rigours of its fiscal policy. The rigours of the Government's fiscal policy are the cause of the dispute. Their attitude to public expenditure is the basic cause. They say that they cannot afford the £10 million that it would cost to concede the claim. The prison officers say that it is much less—£3 million. However, in the Bill the Government are making financial provisions whose extent no one knows and which could cost far more than settling the claim. In the old Westerns, the Indians used to say that the white man spoke with forked tongue. The Government are now speaking with a forked tongue.

It was interesting to hear the suggestion from the Government Front Bench that it was possible to release certain categories of prisoners when it was impossible to release them in the past. If it is possible to release them now during an emergency. why could not they have been released in the past? The Government are prepared to do it now only because they want to take on the prison officers. There are enlightened people in this country who have argued that we could have done this sort of thing before to alleviate prison overcrowding, which has persisted for far too long.

I am concerned not only with the prison officers' case but with the terrible and miserable conditions that are suffered by the prisoners. We have been told that we have not had the money to rectify that problem. I therefore submit that we cannot possibly accept the financial provisions in the Bill because we do not know what they involve. We are being asked to give the Government a blank cheque, to say that, whatever the sum, the Government should be allowed to spend it. That is not good enough. Even on the basis of the Government's argument, it is not good enough. They are advancing a two-faced argument on this question.

If the Government want to solve this problem, they can do so very quickly. They could accept the suggestion of the Prison Officers' Association that the matter be referred to an independent arbitrator, to ACAS, or to a subcommittee of the May committee. That would cost much less than what the Government are seeking to do in the Bill. We cannot possibly accept the Bill, and I ask the House to oppose the money resolution unless we get a firm and clear declaration from the Government that they will change their attitude.

10.55 pm
Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

With respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I think that he missed an important point. I refer the House to the explanatory and financial memorandum. which gives a shorthand, plain English summary of the meaning of the various clauses. Page ii of the memorandum gives an interpretation of the financial effects of the Bill. It states: Arrangements will be made to meet all the additional expenditure resulting from the provisions of the Bill from the Prisons vote. That is ambiguous. At first sight my interpretation is that, whatever the exercise costs, it will be taken off a fixed amount already voted for the prisons. It will denude to that extent the existing amount going through the prison service which, as everyone knows, in capital terms is far from adequate. That is my interpretation of the explanatory memorandum. It is all that we have at hand to guide us. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to explain that point when responding to the debate.

10.56 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

During the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), a Conservative Back Bencher shouted that sending the matter to arbitration would be caving in. It is redolent of the attitude of the Tories that as soon as a body or person is invoked to make a judgment—a proposal accepted by the prison officers—that is treated as caving in. That means that they will cost the nation millions of pounds in additional expenditure because of pride. They will never again be able to ask any group of workers to accept arbitration, because they are not prepared to accept it themselves. If workers say that they are not prepared to accept arbitration, they will be able to quote the Government's attitude. They will say that they do not wish to cave in.

I entirely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. In nearly every working to rule or strike great minds say that is costing an enormous amount of money and that the strikers should return to work. However, the actual cost of trying to defeat a reasonable compromise and settlement costs more than that asked for originally. An attitude of confrontation is built up by the employers or, in this case, the Government, who are also the employers.

The explanatory memorandum points out: Expenditure will be incurred by the police and the armed services in carrying out additional duties consequent on the provisions of the Bill. The point has been made that there is no clear source of money. If money has to be found, the Government will not close prisons to meet the expenditure. They cannot denude the prison Vote because of the additional expenditure involved. The money will have to be found from somewhere. The amount will depend on the duration and seriousness of the destruction of the prison service. It is an open-ended commitment to expenditure. That is less than satisfactory.

The Home Office said that settling the prison officers' dispute on their terms—the Government say that their case is so strong that that could not possibly happen, although they will not send it to arbitration where the strength of their case could be tested—will cost about £10 million. Where could they find that £10 million? They could find it from the Home Office Vote. I recall that before the recess the Home Secretary said that the Home Office would find an additional £18 million for civil defence expenditure. They would provide improved reception for the "trannies" when people followed Home Office directions and spent a fortnight or so under the kitchen table to ward off the effects of a nuclear holocaust, or were busy whitewashing their windows. They would therefore hear very clearly on improved radio frequencies all the warnings of the megatonnage to be dropped. The bolt holes for the bureaucrats would be refurbished at suitably high cost.

We know that this is a gigantic confidence trick—indeed, a cruel one—a complete hoax and a fraud. It discredits the Home Office and every Minister who subscribes to it. Therefore, why not abandon it and accept the truth? There is no defence against nuclear warfare, and the best means of defence is to get rid of nuclear weapons. Even if they do not go so far as that, which I do not expect them to do, why not simply say "All right, we will revise our plans. We will not get this money from some other source". Indeed, the Home Secretary may not have found this sum of money because during the exchange of bluster which passes for Secretary of State replies he was not quite sure where the money would come from.

Mr. Skinner


Mr. Cryer

No, the Secretary of State said that it would come from within the Home Office Vote. Therefore, there are significant chunks of money floating around the Home Office which can be moved around from section of expenditure to section of expenditure. Here is an opportunity, by the Home Secretary's own admission. There is money within the Home Office which can be reallocated

We do not think that some of that allocation is wise or sensible. Indeed, we regard it as a cruel deception on the nation at large. When I say "we", I mean the Labour Party at large.—[HON. MEMBERS: "You mean yourself".] Not at all. If Conservative Members look at the resolutions that were passed at our last annual conference, they will find exactly that sense. Had they been present at the magnificent demonstration on Sunday of 100,000 or so people, they would have found a strong sense of criticism the Home Office view of civil defence. If Conservative Members find the whole thing so amusing. why do they not organise a demonstration of 100,000 people for nuclear weapons and civil defence? My guess is that they could not possibly do it, because people are genuinely apprehensive about the whole position.

The point that I was making was that the Home Office is allocating expenditure within its budget for purposes which, to say the least, are somewhat dubious and can be condemned completely by right-thinking people. Why not use that money to stop the development of an absurdity in which the rights of Parliament are being trampled on, in which legislation is not being given sufficient consideration and in which money is being wasted?

If the resolution of this dispute is to hold for any sort of time, more money will be spent on alternative facilities than would have settled the dispute in the first place, even—contrary to the Government's confident assertions—allowing for the fact that any arbitrator may have found in favour the Prison Officers' Association completely and fully.

The Government say that arbitrators would not find that anyhow. Therefore, why not get rid of this absurd exercise? Stop trampling on the rights of Parliament. Stop wasting public money. Put this matter to arbitration. We do not want to see the prison service in further demoralised disarray. This must be causing concern to many decent, hardworking people who are often praised by Conservative Members for being virtuous. They are still the same people. They are still part of the uniformed section of employees who normally invoke lavish praise from Conservative Members, such as the police, the Army, the prison service. Normally one cannot stop the praise from the Conservative Benches for those protective services. But they are still the same people. They have a legitimate claim which they are prepared to put to arbitration, and, in fairness, the Government should be able to accept that.

We should not let this money resolution go through without a measure of protest—even from half a dozen Labour Members. I do not mind too much about the numbers, but it often happens that if there is not a Division on a measure, the message goes out from this House that it was passed without a Division, on the nod implying that there was no dissension. But there is dissension on this matter. Dissidents normally receive high praise from Conservative Members, but they generally have to be conveniently several thousand miles away, preferably in Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Tonight Labour Members are taking a dissident view of this expenditure because we do not feel that it has been satisfactorily explained by the Government, and we feel that it is entirely unjustified. I firmly believe that in a few days or weeks the cost will have outweighed the original cost.

On Second Reading I said that when Conservatives talked about democracy they spoke, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, with a forked tongue. We can learn a few lessons from the Conservatives from the way in which they behave utterly ruthlessly with all democratic tenets and precepts.

The Minister of State believes passionately in the Executive not being involved in the judiciary. He believes passionately in democracy and in the procedures of the House of Commons—until it comes to the point when he needs to push them to one side. He says that this Bill is in the national interest. We are prepared to give a massive amount of time to debating the abolition of the House of Lords. If we debate the issue for two days, it will be double the time given to this measure. We shall be prepared to debate the money resolution. We shall be prepared to give the debate on the abolition of the House of Lords five times the time that the Tories have been prepared to give to this Bill.

Whenever there is an example of the way in which legislation can be forced through the House, it is not the Labour Party that is responsible. We always bend over backwards to give the right of consultation. We enable people to be brought in to air their views in the various Committee Rooms, through consultative documents, and so on. We go to the greatest possible lengths to consult. The lesson that we can learn from the Government's handling of this measure is the speed with which they have acted. We are expresing an opposing view. We do not like the way in which the money is being used. We do not like the way in which the measure is being forced through the House. We are prepared to be more generous and give double the time for the debate on the abolition of the House of Lords.

Let the Tories take the message that we have noted their ruthlessness. We deplore it and we are prepared to be more democratic. We oppose this money resolution.

11.9 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

In our proceedings today we have witnessed the total contempt of the Government for the House of Commons. They put forward the money resolution without giving the House any explanation of where the money will be found. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) asked earlier about reimbursing the police authorities for the costs they had already incurred in holding prisoners in police stations. He was particularly concerned about Durham, where the police will have to take over responsibility for security at the new Frankland prison.

We were told by the Home Secretary that he would not be giving the answers but that they would be given in the winding-up speech. But no one has given any answers at all to what is to be done about reimbursing the police authorities. Everyone is aware that local authorities are now under great financial pressure. They want an answer to that question. But we have not had an answer under the money resolution or the main debate. I hope that the Minister will now make absolutely clear an undertaking that appears to be written into the Bill—that the police authorities will he fully reimbursed for all the expenditure in which they are involved in carrying out the Government's wishes on this matter.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith. North)

I speak again because, having heard most of the Minister's summing up earlier., I saw no significant move on his part towards making a gesture towards the Prison Officers' Association on the lines that I indicated to him. I pointed out, by quoting a number of parts of the May report, that it was quite a fair statement by the POA that it had not had arbitration on this part of the award. I referred the Minister to a couple of paragraphs for consideration on that matter.

If the Minister is prepared to ride roughshod over the democratic interests of not only the House but also the country at large, I can only assume that it is because the Treasury is saying to the Home Office "You cannot have this award, because, if you do, others will follow". If that is the Government's view, I cannot think of anything more unlikely to be the case. When the present Government came to office, they honoured some of the previous commitments under Clegg and others. If we read this part of the May report in any sensible, intelligent way, we find that it is clear that some move could be made towards an arbitration without changing anything about future policy.

In both of the paragraphs that I quoted to the Minister, May states very clearly that there is a possibility of further negotiation. Indeed, in one of them, May pointedly says that there should be a matter for further negotiation between the two parties. On the specific claim, No. 17, to which the POA refers, May distinctly stated that he and his committee were not setting themselves up as arbitrators.

As again I said to the Minister earlier, the other actions of May have to some extent brought out the present anomaly, and they have also created a situation in which some officers get an allowance and some do not, depending on the situation.

There is no justification for the Treasury to argue that this is a foot in the door for other claims. There is no reason to believe that the POA would pursue this matter unreasonably. Everything that has been said to me by POA officials and by many other prison officers around the country indicates that they are willing and anxious to have some offer of arbitration. It is clear from what they say that there is an expectation that the full backdating would not be involved—which is where the magical figure of £10 million comes from.

The POA is prepared to move on that matter. As I have said here on many occasions, I had been a fundamental critic of the POA on many of the things it has done and said previously, but on this issue I believe that the POA has a lot of right on its side. It is behaving with a degree of responsibility which should set an example to the Government and should not be responded to in a way which offends against the basic constitution of this country and the expectations of its citizens.

Mr. John Tilley (Lambeth, Central)

Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the £10 million backdating being possibly an overstatement from the Government, their suggestion that it would cost £3 million a year from now on, because these continuous duty credits stem from overtime, means that the Government are assuming that there will be current levels of overtime which come directly from, and as a consequence of, the current levels of overcrowding? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government had the right sort of policies of penal reform, to which they give lip service in debates but do not seem to be very willing to put into operation, that figure of £3 million would be much lower? The tragedy is that, because the cost of all this, as has been pointed out, will come from the existing prison Vote, the chances of reducing overcrowding, and therefore reducing overtime, and therefore reducing the cost of these continuous duty credits, will be even less as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Soley

I accept my hon. Friend's intervention. He has many good arguments that tell in his favour.

If the Minister reads paragraphs 9.10 and 9.29 of the May report, he will learn that the Prison Officers' Association has a good case for arbitration. He could settle the dispute now, without any of this offensive legislation. He could do so in the first instance without paying out any money. He might even get an arbitration in his favour if he did but have the wit to respond to the association.

11.15 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan)

During the debate—

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is possible for one Minister to answer for another, but this is a money resolution debate. The Treasury is represented by two Ministers on the Treasury Bench, one of them a Cabinet Minister whose name is on the Bill. The Chief Secretary is present and another Treasury Minister is present. Would it not be possible for us to conform to the normal custom and have a Treasury Minister reply to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

That is not a point of order for me. The Government must take responsibility for who answers a debate.

Mr. Brittan

Some serious points have been made during the course of the debate on the money resolution. However, there has been an extensive debate on a wide variety of issues that do not, on the face of it, arise from the Bill, still less the money resolution, such as a civil defence and the reform or abolition of the House of Lords.

Some Labour Members have suggested that these procedures set a precedent that they might find useful on another occassion. A relevant comparison is to take the proposal of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to abolish the House of Lords. If the hon. Gentleman were to follow the precedent that it is now claimed we are setting, he would abolish it for one month and then reinstate it. As I understand it, he is not content with so limited a measure of constitutional reform. He cannot pray in aid anything that is being done in the Bill to support his designs on the House of Lords.

The extravagent expressions that have been uttered about democracy are not relevant. We have proceeded in a proper parliamentary way. We have done what has been done in emergencies in the past. The House will have to concede that on Second Reading we considered carefully the arguments that were presented and attempted to deal with them, including making a major change in the Bill that we have announced.

Rather than attempting to deal with constitutional points of dubious relevance to the money resolution and of still less validity, I shall take the limited time that I propose to spend on the money resolution to deal briefly with the financial aspect and to take up some of the arguments advanced by some Labour Members, especially by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who obviously felt that I was unable to do justice to his remarks on Second Reading. I do not mind having another go.

In a debate of this sort we can only indicate the categories of expenditure that are likely to arise. That has been done in the Bill. The amount that will have to be spent must depend on the duration and extent of the dispute, which we hope will be as short as possible. It would be unrealistic to attempt to put a figure on it at this stage.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North has once again asked us to consider the terms of the May report.

Mr. Heffer


Mr. Brittan

I think that I should respond to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that time is limited. I am sure that he will feel that his hon. Friend's comments are worthy of an answer.

Mr. Heffer

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Britain

I will not do so now. I shall do so if there is time.

Mr. Heffer


Mr. Brittan

I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would give way and I said clearly that I would not.

Mr. Heffer

What about dates?

Mr. Brittan

The hon. Gentleman will get nothing by shouting that he will not secure by the ordinary process. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North raised a serious point but the hon. Member for Walton obviously does not want to hear it answered. I propose to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. He asked whether we had looked at paragraph 9.10 of the May report. He believes that that paragraph suggests the possibility of a further reference to May.

In that paragraph Mr. Justice May explained clearly that he had considered the various claims, including claim 16, on the basis of entitlement. He looked at the various agreements and practices that had developed in the prison service and formed a view, which he stated in the report, about the entitlement of various people under the arrangements as he, properly, interpreted them. If he had gone beyond that, he would have considered not only entitlements under the existing arrangements and agreements as properly interpreted, but also fresh claims. If he had done that, he would have had to look at something completely separate in a different way.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North will appreciate that if we did as he suggested, it would involve reopening not only this claim—which was put to Mr. Justice May and in respect of which he did not find in favour of the POA—but all the other claims that the May committee considered. One could not avoid that conclusion. The result would be extremely undesirable, because after May had reported on the various claims the Government implemented all the recommendations. As Mr. Justice May said, We have accordingly proceeded upon a strict basis of entitlement. It would be possible to refer the matter to him again only if one proceeded not on the basis of entitlement but on the basis of claim. That would be a completely different approach and it would throw open once again all the matters that have been resolved.

Mr. Soley

The failure of the Minister's case is that he has an extra

Division No. 475] AYES [11.25 p.m.
Alexander, Richard Gardiner, George (Reigate) Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Ancram, Michael Carel-Jones, Tristan Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Gorst, John Meyer, Sir Anthony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Gow, Ian Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Gower, Sir Raymond Moate, Roger
Berry, Hon Anthony Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N) Morgan, Geraint
Best, Keith Grylls, Michael Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Biggs-Davison, John Gummer, John Selwyn Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Blackburn, John Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Murphy, Christopher
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hawkins, Paul Myles, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Hawksley, Warren Neale, Gerrard
Braine, Sir Bernard Hayhoe, Barney Needham, Richard
Bright, Graham Heath, Rt Hon Edward Nelson, Anthony
Brinton, Tim Henderson, Barry Normanton, Tom
Brittan, Leon Hicks, Robert Onslow, Cranley
Brooke, Hon Peter Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Brotherton, Michael Hooson, Tom Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Bruce-Gardyne, John Hordern, Peter Parris, Matthew
Buck, Antony Hunt, David (Wirral) Fatten, Christopher (Bath)
Budgen, Nick Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Percival, Sir Ian
Butcher, John Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Proctor, K Harvey
Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln) Kershaw, Anthony Raison, Timothy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Knight, Mrs Jill Rathbone, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Lang, Ian Rees-Davies, W. R.
Colvin, Michael Lee, John Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cope, John Le Marchant, Spencer Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Costain, Sir Albert Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Dorrell, Stephen Lester, Jim (Beeston) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Dover, Denshore Loveridge, John Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Lyell, Nicholas Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Elliott, Sir William Macfarlane, Neil Silvester, Fred
Eyre, Reginald McNair-Wilson, Michael, (Newbury) Sims, Roger
Faith, Mrs Shelia McQuarrie, Albert Skeet, T. H. H.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Major, John Speller, Tony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marlow, Tony Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Fookes, Miss Janet Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stainton, Keith
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Mates, Michael Stanbrook, Ivor
Freud, Clement Mather, Carol Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

expectation which the POA does not have. The POA wants to refer this particular dispute to the May committee or to a sub-committee of May. That is what matters. It does not reopen everything else because the POA knows that the longer term will be settled by changing the system.

Mr. Brittan

On what basis can this dispute be put forward? It has been considered on the basis of entitlement and it has not been accepted. If it is put forward on the basis of a fresh claim, that basis will be different from the one used in settling everything else. One cannot say that everything else will be considered on the basis of entitlement, but that because Mr. Justice May did not give the answer that we wanted on this issue we shall invite him—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 49.

Stradling Thomas, J. Trippier, David Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East) Waldegrave, Hon William Wolfson, Mark
Tebbit, Norman Watson, John Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thompson, Donald Wickenden, Keith Mr. John Wakeham and
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) Wilkinson, John Mr. David Waddington
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Alton, David Haynes, Frank Richardson, Jo
Ashton, Joe Heffer, Eric S. Rooker, J. W.
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Home Robertson, John Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Beith, A. J. Homewood, William Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hooley, Frank Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Kilfedder, James A. Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Kilroy-Silk, Robert Skinner, Dennis
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) McDonald, Dr Oonagh Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Cryer, Bob McKay, Allen (Penistone) Steel, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Arthur McKelvey, William Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Dixon, Donald McNamara, Kevin Tilley, John
Duffy, A. E. P. Marshall, Jim (Leicester South) Whitehead, Phillip
Eastham, Ken Maxton, John Winnick, David
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire) Mikardo, Ian
English, Michael Paisley, Rev Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Evans, John (Newton) Parry, Robert Mr. Clive Soley and
Field, Frank Penhaligon, David Mr. Martin Flannery
Foulkes, George Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Question accordingly agreed to.


That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the detention of persons who may lawfully be detained in penal institutions in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  1. (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and
  2. (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.