Commons Sitting of 3 December 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered on Thursday 5 December.

    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL
      CITY OF EDINBURGH DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
        STRATHCLYDE REGIONAL COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
        Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Capital Spending
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average annual increase in national health service capital spending since 1978–79; and what was the average increase between 1973–74 and 1978–79.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): National health service capital spending has increased by an average of 4·3 per cent. a year in real terms since 1978–79, compared with an average real terms fall of 6·7 per cent. a year between 1973–74 and 1978–79.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she confirm that that excellent national news is reflected in my constituency, which is served by three separate district health authorities which have invested more than £54 million in new hospital builds since 1979?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Not only can I confirm my hon. Friend's figures, I can go further and tell him that an additional £115 million has been invested by the three health authorities that his patients use in Cambridge, Peterborough, and West Norfolk and Wisbech. That is a real and practical example of investing in the health service for the future and of serving patients.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: How much of that capital spending was funded from the closure and sale of established hospitals during those periods?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that figure at the moment, but it is essential that we use NHS buildings as effectively as we can. Investing in capital does not mean preserving units that are no longer needed. There were 30,000 tuberculosis beds in this country before the
    128
    war, but we do not need TB beds now; we need day surgery and intensive care facilities, such as those that I opened yesterday when I visited a hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). That shows the side of the health service that the hon. Lady is not so keen to talk about—our investment in the future and our effective use of facilities and resources.

    In-patient Waiting Lists
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients are waiting for treatment currently; and how many were waiting in March 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): There were 752,422 people waiting for in-patient treatment in March 1979 and 692,946 in March 1991—a drop of 8 per cent. However it is the time that patients wait that matters. Latest provisional figures for in-patients and day cases for September 1991 show that in the past six months the number of patients waiting over a year fell by 7 per cent. and the number waiting over two years fell by 16 per cent. This builds on the record reductions achieved last year. Comparisons with 1979 can be made only for in-patients. On that basis the number waiting over 12 months is now 27 per cent. lower than in March 1979. Details have been placed in the Library.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures clearly show the progress that the Government are making? Will he confirm that in the north-west region the latest figures show a fall of 26 per cent. since last March in the number of patients having to wait more than a year? Are not those figures the best in the whole of England?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It gives me pleasure to confirm that my hon. Friend's region has been the winner in the past six months, and that waits of more than one year have been reduced by 26 per cent. while waits of more than two years have been reduced by 37 per cent.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many magnetic resonance imagers are available in England and Wales to provide essential diagnostic information, given that the town of Portland in Oregon has 14?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not have the figure to hand, although I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a great many more than in 1979. I will write to him.
    Dame Jill Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the west midlands, which is also high in the league table. The numbers waiting two years have fallen by some 31 per cent. in my area, and we are most grateful for that.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is right —over two-year waits in the west midlands are down by 31 per cent. and over one-year waits are down by 24 per cent. That shows the real progress that is being made on the waiting lists initiative and towards fulfilling our commitment to get rid of all over two-year waits by next year.
    Ms. Harman: Can the Secretary of State point to any year in the past 10 in which the September in-patient

    129
    waiting list figures have not been higher than for every year under Labour? While he is dealing with waiting list figures, will he tell us more about the figures for day patients? Does he admit that the waiting list for day patients has shot up by 50 per cent? Does he also admit that for the first time in the history of the national health service, waiting lists for day patients and in-patients combined have risen above 900,000 people?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady persists—1 do not think that it is because she does not understand—in making the bogus comparison between in-patient and out-patient waits now and in 1979. I am proud that we have greatly increased the facilities for day-case treatment. That was right. Therefore, there are increasing numbers of people on the waiting lists for such treatment and they are being treated rapidly. I hope that she will welcome that —if she understands it, which I believe she does.

    Patients Charter
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from NUPE and COHSE on the patients charter.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Two representations were received yesterday.
    Mr. Brazier: Is not it sad to hear that until yesterday no representations had been made on the patients charter by NUPE and COHSE? Does he agree that it shows that the unions do not represent their ordinary members who, in hospitals such as the Kent and Canterbury hospital in my constituency, strive for every possible improvement in care of the patient?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated. It is perhaps not entirely a coincidence that his question was due to be answered today and the representations from the two trade unions arrived in the Department yesterday. We know something about the views of Mr. Bickerstaffe because he gave a substantial interview to the New Statesman and Society recently. He did not mention the patients charter, but he gave us some other insights into his approach to the problems. He was asked:
    "What are the likely expectations of your members with Labour in power?"
    He answered:
    "We hope the national minimum wage—currently £3·40 an hour for 40 hours before stoppages—will rise."
    When asked what relationship there was between NUPE and Labour's leadership, Mr. Bickerstaffe said:
    "I meet with the leader, with John Smith, Robin Cook, when necessary."
    My hon. Friend might like to speculate about who decides when it is necessary.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister pay tribute to the distinguished record of COHSE and NUPE in providing excellent standards of patient care over many years? That dates back to long before the Government's so-called patients charter was ever dreamt of. Will the Minister respond positively to COHSE's request for a ministerial meeting to discuss certain aspects of the patients charter?
    Mr. Dorrell: I will gladly give credit to the unstinting support that the staff of the national health service give to the principles of the NHS. Without it we could not possibly deliver the high quality of service that we do.
    130
    However, the role of COHSE, the trade union which sponsors the hon. Gentleman, in delivering that quality of care is, at best, marginal.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the same unions that stopped the sick from getting to hospital in 1978 and 1979 are showing the same callous disregard—or at least their leaderships are doing so —for the needs of patients? Does he hope that Labour Members of Parliament who are sponsored by COHSE and NUPE will prevail on those unions to put the patients first?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I hope that the Labour party is anxious that reference to patients should be one of the priorities of the unions which claim to represent health service staff. In the same interview from which I quoted, Mr. Bickerstaffe went on to repeat the high priority that NUPE attaches to increasing the minimum wage—a proposal which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has already said would cost the NHS between £400 million and £500 million.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the Minister work for £80 a week?
    Mr. Dorrell: Mr. Bickerstaffe said that he wanted to see that bill increased. He goes on to say:
    "We would like to have argued"—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is a hypocrite.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even though that remark was made from a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman must withdraw it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Nobody in the House would work for £80 a week. I withdraw the remark.
    Mr. Dorrell: Mr. Bickerstaffe goes on to repeat:
    "We would like to have argued for a higher minimum wage, for example, but the party has said no, there are others —pensioners and so on.
    Even in that context, Mr. Bickerstaffe does not mention patients.
    Mrs. Heal: The health service unions, like members of the public, are worried that the commitments in the patients charter
    "to receive health care on the basis of clinical need, regardless of ability to pay"
    are being breached daily. The promises made have already been broken. Do not Conservative Members, the Secretary of State and his health team agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who said in a newspaper article that:
    "All in all, it was, and is, wrong to breach the principle that a health check within the NHS should be free"?
    The question that the Secretary of State must answer is —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Heal: Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of what is going wrong. The Secretary of State has said that he wants a national health service that is well informed of people's needs and preferences. Does the Minister agree that people need and prefer a free eye test?
    Mr. Dorrell: Once again, the Labour Front Bench is raising the red herring of charges. The commitment to deliver a health service on the basis of clinical need and not

    131
    of ability to pay is common ground between both sides of the House. Any charge within the NHS requires a statutory authorisation. There are three important bases for such charges, and two of them were introduced by the Labour party.

    Air Ambulance Services
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many area health authorities now have (a) part-time and (b) full-time use of helicopters for air ambulance; and what advice his Department gives to area health authorities on the desirability of these services.
    Mr. Dorrell: Several ambulance services now use helicopters. It is the view of the regional ambulance officers' group that further development of air ambulances should await the outcome of the current evaluation of helicopter ambulances.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that the research being undertaken will show that air ambulances are a useful contributor to paramedical facilities within health authorities. However, will my hon. Friend consider the impact on residents in areas close to the landing pads for helicopters providing such services? Will he also consider the difficulties being experienced by some of my constituents in Swindon, who have a helicopter landing pad only 20 yds away from their back fence? That has been provided because it does not require planning permission. No doubt it is to the benefit of patients, but it is by no means to the benefit of residents.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. The local ambulance service in Wiltshire is to be congratulated on the innovative proposal that it has introduced—sharing the cost of a helicopter ambulance between the health authority and the police service. However, when a helicopter lands it can cause a disturbance to local residents. The health authority has recognised that and has sought an alternative and more convenient landing pad. Unfortunately, it did not get approval from the Civil Aviation Authority. I am sure that that issue is not dead and that the health authority will continue to look for more appropriate landing facilities.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware of the broad welcome that has been given to the development of such a service in various parts of the country? Is he further aware of the important contribution that it can make in large and more geographically remote areas, as it allows casualty access to larger regional hospitals in the event of mountaineering or road accident emergencies?
    Will the Minister examine how the system is working at the weekends? I gather that in some areas, where facilities are usually available from Monday to Friday, the lack of weekend facilities is causing anxiety. That is especially true for travelling, mountaineering and similar accidents, when weekends may be times of maximum need.
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The patients charter sets out clearly the entitlement of a patient and the standard we seek to set for ambulance services. The charter does not specify 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas during weekdays; it sets that standard for seven days a week, 365 days of the
    132
    year. It is the responsibility of the regional ambulance officer to deliver that standard to all the people living in his district.

    GP Fund Holders
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to relax the patient numbers criteria so that smaller general practitioner practices can apply to be fund holders.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know that many general practitioners who are not eligible to join the scheme recognise the benefits of fund holding and wish to take part. I hope to be able to open the scheme to more practices soon. At present, small practices may group together to become fund holders.
    Mr. Knapman: My right hon. Friend is aware of the clear advantages to patients of fund-holding practices. That is being increasingly recognised, not only by doctors but by the British Medical Association and, possibly, by some Opposition Members. Does he appreciate the keen desire of many small practices to join these excellent schemes?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. There is a growing consensus about the success of the scheme, and that runs right across the general practitioners taking part in it. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not exactly clear about his policy on these issues. I hope that that unclarity means that he is moving towards us.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a danger that the number of patients per doctor might have an effect on the eventual standard of treatment that patients receive? Is he carefully watching the changes that are taking place to ensure that the number of patients per doctor conforms with the ability to supply a good service?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, we are assessing the whole fund-holding scheme jointly with the general medical services committee, the relevant committee of the BMA. The hon. Gentleman might recall that one of our successes has been to bring down average list sizes markedly since Labour was in power.
    Mr. Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that general practitioners, whether fund-holders or not, as a result of the new contract—which initially was often bitterly opposed—are now giving patients a much better service than they had in the past?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, and that is not just his opinion. A recent independent poll on exactly that matter showed that already, within the first year, a significant number of patients of general practitioners recognised that they were getting better services than a year previously. The level of opposition that existed when my predecessor brought in the contract will be shown by history to have been wildly overstated. It has been a success.
    Mr. Rooker: In the context of smaller practices, I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman a subsidiary but related issue, that of the single-practice general practitioner. Does he believe that, even with massive commitment and dedication, it will be possible for the

    133
    large number of single-practice GPs in this country to measure up to the demands of the community care programme in 1993?
    I cite as an example the urban areas of the city which I partially represent—[Interruption.] I speak for all of Birmingham when I speak on this issue, and I am trying to raise an important matter in which there may be some common cause. There are 586 GPs in 270 practices, over a third of which are single practices. Even with their dedication and commitment, one must feel concern about their ability to measure up to the infrastructure needed for a viable community care programme.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I respect the hon. Gentleman's commitment to those matters, and he is right to point to one of the problems. In recent years there has been a move to much bigger primary care teams, which has generally been welcomed. Many dedicated single-handed practitioners remain, and we must ensure that that option remains so that GPs are free to practise how they wish. One of the strengths of the fund-holding scheme is that general practitioners can group together to use the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, the scheme can provide some of the back-up for single-handed practitioners without their losing the independence that they rightly value.

    National Health Service Expenditure
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of gross domestic product spent on the national health service in 1991–92; what it will be in 1992–93; and what it was in 1978–79.
    Mr. Waldegrave: An estimated 5·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product will be spent on the NHS this year, rising to 5·7 per cent. next year. In 1978–79, the NHS share of GDP was a full percentage point lower, at 4·7 per cent.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only has the Conservative party demonstrated that it is willing to spend a greater proportion of gross national product, but, by continuing to expand our economy, we have surpassed the Labour party bid at the 1987 election —when it said that it would increase spending on the national health service by 3 per cent.—by about a third?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is important to note that if the pledge that the Labour party made at the last election had been carried through, dramatically less money would have been spent on health, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. That achievement represents a larger share of a larger national product and the Conservative party can be extremely proud of it.
    Mr. Nellist: Has the Secretary of State seen the item in The Independent yesterday about NHS spending on opted-out hospitals? It refers to a paper called "Personnel Policy and Practice", which advises the managers of all opted-out hospitals to sack renegades and subversives. They are defined as all those who do not share the values and goals of opt-outs. At Coventry's Walsgrave hospital, in virtually every ballot that was held, 80 to 90 per cent. of all doctors, nurses and health workers voted against opt-out. If they are all sacked, who will run the health service?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman actually threatened some of the staff in that hospital for carrying out Government policy. He was forced by the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that threat, so he should be a little careful. He referred to an old paper that is regularly recycled by one of the unions. It is a little out of date. I direct the hon. Gentleman to the leader on the matter in the same newspaper today.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend consider that, although statistics are helpful, the important thing about the health service is the quality of care, and the outcome of the treatments that are given? It is important, especially in my area, to accept that Mersey has achieved dramatic reductions in health service waiting lists, for which Sir Donald Wilson should be given credit in Mersey and Mr. Peter Hayes for the part that he has played in Macclesfield. However, the quality of the service for the amount of money allocated and the outcome of the treatment are critical for the people of this country.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend and I join him in paying tribute to the management of the health service in his part of the country. We are taking on Mr. McKeever from Crewe to help us with new waiting list initiatives in the Mersey region, and we are giving him £2 million to deal with some of the longer lists. We should be most proud that, despite the fact that our health service spends less wastefully than those in some other countries, our figures on, for example, perinatal mortality are better or just as good.

    Hospital Ancillary Services
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the contracting out of hospital ancillary services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Government's further proposals for market testing hospital ancillary services are set out in the White Paper "Competing for Quality", and take account of representations received.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister confirm that health boards have been issued with new instructions, both written and by meetings, to be responsive to the needs of private contractors? Is there any chance of the Government issuing similar instructions to ask health boards to be responsive to the needs of health service workers? How can a Government who claim to defend the national health service pursue that claim when the hidden agenda behind so many of the changes is to break the morale, commitment and solidarity of people who work in the health service? How can a Government at war with health service workers claim to be defending the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman does not need to rely on my words to rebut every word that he has just said; he need only read the latest edition of the in-house magazine of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, where it is written:
    "The Mid-Glamorgan District Linen Service is efficient because it has no choice. In 1987, the service had to compete for the hospital's laundry contract for the first time and in 1993, it will have to submit another tender."
    The article quotes Mr. Jeff Chard, a former COHSE shop steward, as saying:

    135
    "At the moment, I have to use hospital staff like engineers to service the machines and do repairs. But eventually I'll be able to go to anyone I like if he's cheaper I'll have to get Dai Jones the carpenter from down the road instead." He went on —
    Hon. Members: Boring!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is in order for Ministers to quote, but I think they should do so briefly.
    Mr. Dorrell: Just two more sentences, Mr. Speaker. The article continues:
    "Competitive tendering was forced on to us and it's put a tremendous pressure on everyone. But it has made us more productive and more of a team—we all have to co-operate and pull together just to keep our heads above water."
    Mrs. Currie: Is not the key to good service in the health service, good management? Would not the worst thing that could possibly happen for any of our constituents or patients be for the Labour party to come to power and abolish competitive tendering? That would not only cost a great deal of money, but put power once again into the hands of the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which could then decide how hospitals were to be run.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The compulsory competitive tendering programme has already saved the health service £630 million in England and £85 million in Scotland —enough to complete 225,000 hip replacements. The repeating saving on an annual basis is £156 million, which is used to increase patient care. It is that figure that the Labour party is committed to cut.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Under-Secretary of State ever ask in relation to competitive tendering about the price patients have to pay in poorer food and dirtier hospitals? Does he not know that one in five of private contracts has ended in failure? Is he aware that the National Childbirth Trust recommends that mothers in maternity wards should clean the baths? Is he aware of the concern expressed by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland about the poor food supplied by a private contractor in my constituency? Does the right to a clean hospital or decent food figure anywhere in his patients charter, or does cutting costs always come first with the Government?
    Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman's question is a straight paraphrase from publications issued by COHSE and NUPE. The hon. Gentleman must answer this question: how can he argue that it is in patients' interests to move away from a system of competitive tendering and use that money to pay trade union members rather than to pay for extra treatment for patients?
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend confirm that savings in ancillary services such as catering, cleaning and laundry go to benefit patients directly, not to the paymasters of the Labour party, COHSE and NUPE?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes, competitive tendering is based on the simple proposition that health service managers are trained to manage health care institutions, not laundries or cleaning forces. It is surely better to use skilled laundry and cleaning managers to manage those services and to rely on
    136
    the skills of health care managers to manage the essential core activity of the health service —the provision of health care.

    NHS Trusts
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in connection with applications for national health service trust status from within the Sheffield health authority.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Trent regional health authority received a wide variety of responses to the consultation exercise for the Sheffield applications which the Secretary of State took fully into account when making his decisions to grant NHS trust status.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Minister aware that now that clear decisions have been taken on trust status, anxiety in Sheffield relates to the likely impact of the Chancellor's autumn statement on the health authority's financial position next year and in the long term, and particularly the need for greater per capita funding given the number of elderly people and the levels of health inequality and social deprivation in Sheffield, particularly in Attercliffe?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that there is no more concern about trust status. There has been most impressive progress in Sheffield. I commend the annual report from the health authority chief executive, which shows that Sheffield is a centre of excellence for health. The hon. Gentleman need not look only to the health authority chief executive; he can ask the patients. A recent survey by Sheffield university showed that 95 per cent. of patients surveyed were either satisfied or very satisfied with the service that they were receiving at the Northern General hospital trust —an impressive result.
    The hon. Gentleman particularly asked about weighted capitation. He will know that the health service has an excellent settlement this year, with an additional £2·2 billion for the regions—an increase of 8·9 per cent., or 4·2 per cent. in real terms. Weighted capitation is expected to be a more equitable system of distribution, taking account of the young and the elderly. The precise allocation of resources within the region is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's regional health authority chairman, but I know that he will have confidence in the excellent work taking place in Sheffield, particularly in the light of its new health strategy.
    Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend suggest that hospitals in the Sheffield health authority area considering trust status should visit the Walsall trust hospital in the west midlands, where they will discover that in the first three months of this year 1,100 more patients were treated than in the year before—a 13 per cent. increase? Is not that evidence that hospital trusts work?
    Mrs. Bottomley: If the citizens of Sheffield needed to go to Walsall, I am sure that they would do so, but they need look only to their own trust to see the remarkable progress already made. It has six more consultants, a new computerised axial tomography scanner, new plastic surgery beds and an additional surgical ward. I am delighted that in Walsall, as in the other trusts around the country, more patients are being treated more effectively and morale is good. The trusts are a great success.

    Local Authority Social Services
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of local authority social services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Local authorities provide a range of social services under section 2 of the Act, including assistance in the home, meals, equipment and adaptations, telephones, holidays and recreational facilities.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Why are the Government preventing local authorities from providing adequate services for the chronically sick and disabled? Is the Minister aware that if the Wakefield district council social services department had to stick to its standard spending assessment it would have to save a further £3 million this year on services for the chronically sick and disabled? Is she further aware that, like myself, each weekend many hon. Members meet many chronically sick and disabled constituents who are not receiving adequate services to enable them to lead a reasonable and respectable life? What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased to be able to report to the hon. Gentleman that we have just had the first results of the monitoring arrangements for the implementation of community care and we are impressed with the practical schemes already being advanced to ensure that the frail and vulnerable, and particularly the chronically sick and disabled, receive the support that they need. The hon. Gentleman will want to know that during the past two years personal social services standard spending will have increased by nearly 33 per cent.—19 per cent. in real terms —which is more than adequate to allow for demography and renewed pressures on local authorities.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary groups and private providers can efficiently deliver services for the disabled? Will she instruct local authorities not to use all the extra funds for their own union-dominated monopoly services, so beloved by the Opposition?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There is little doubt that the work undertaken by the voluntary sector, and often by the independent sector, is of an extremely high quality. It is vital that local authority social services departments do not use the additional resources for a job creation scheme for their own staff. They are required to identify the best way of helping the frail and vulnerable and in many cases that will be by using the voluntary or the independent sector.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that those vitally important services that she described depend not only on her own Department, but on the Department of Social Services, on the Department of the Environment in respect of local government, on the Scottish Office and on the Welsh Office? Given the importance of those services from 1993, in the context of care in the community, will the Minister undertake an in-depth review to ensure adequate budgets for those services to ensure that there is no shortfall thereafter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's comments. If the individual is to receive a seamless service,
    138
    effective co-operation at local level is essential to ensure that the frail and vulnerable receive help from suitable services and health authorities, with the assistance of housing authorities. We in central Government are taking strenuous steps to make sure that we work effectively; similarly, it is vital that local and health authorities, together with general practitioners, make sure that they are ready for April 1993.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that while Britain has the highest proportion of health costs funded by the public purse, the British public have shown their confidence in it by the fact that only 13 per cent. of them choose private treatment, compared with 25 per cent. in France, and 28 per cent. in Germany? [Interruption.] Will Opposition Members kindly keep quiet?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend identifies a vital point about public confidence in our national health service, which stems from the Government's investment in and support for it. My hon. Friend need ask only one question. If she or any of her friends become unwell anywhere else in the world, what would they do? They would make their way back home as fast as they could to receive the benefits of national health service treatment.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How many disabled people, after being assessed for services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1979, are now on waiting lists for the help that they need? At the latest date for which the Minister has figures, how many local authorities had reduced or removed services in cases where there was no diminution of need? How does the Minister react to the case, of which I have informed her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in which home help provision was withdrawn from an elderly couple, both of whom are severely and progressively disabled?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a steady and substantial increase in resources for all kinds of community care—be it day places for the mentally ill or for those with learning disabilities, or increased resources for home help. The right hon. Gentleman identified the way in which some home help services have been moving towards home care services. We are looking at that, but to suggest that there has been other than a clear and steady increase in available services would be a travesty of the truth.

    NHS Expenditure
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much spending on the national health service (a) in England and (b) in the United Kingdom will increase in 1992–93.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Total NHS spending is forecast to increase by £2·2 billion in England and by £2·8 billion in the United Kingdom next year. That means that, throughout the United Kingdom, the national health service will be spending roughly £100 million per day.
    Mr. Day: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shadow Chancellor said recently that to repair what he unjustifiably called the Government's neglect of the national health service would require an extra £2billion in this year's autumn statement? Given that an extra £2·8

    139
    billion was found, has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received an apology from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), or have any of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen for health offered to withdraw that allegation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I wrote a number of letters to Labour's spokesman on such matters, asking him to clarify Labour's spending pledges. Some months later, he is still working on the reply, but doubtless I shall receive it sooner or later. Labour's spending pledges are in an equal muddle to its policy position, which was described, in two separate New Statesman and Society articles last week and this week as being meaningless.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the not Secretary of State continuously presenting a distorted view when he tries to convince the House that the Government are spending more on the national health service? Is it not a fact that with 560,000 people reaching the age of 65 this year and the elderly accounting for a larger proportion of the population, national health service provision is proportionately poorer, not better?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. His difficulty is that his party has nothing to tell him about what it would spend if it were returned to power, which it will not be. That lack of leadership makes it difficult for him to do other than cavil at our figures. I sympathise with him.

    Competitive Tendering
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the savings from competitive tendering in the national health service.
    Mr. Dorrell: Total annual savings from competitive tendering of NHS ancillary services in the United Kingdom now amount to £156 million.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of competitive tendering and the introduction of a national minimum wage would rob the NHS of hundreds of millions of pounds and would lead to the cicsure of hospitals and the cancellation of operations? Would not such a course of action be as successful as the racing tips of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party is not committed to any specific increase in health service expenditure, but it is committed to a specific cut in the proportion of NHS expenditure used for patient care. My hon. Friend correctly identifies that, and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will have a difficult task explaining it to patients who would not be treated if his policies were implemented.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham council keeps many of its council houses and flats empty? Does he agree that the most effective action that could be taken to end homelessness would be if Labour-controlled London councils brought back into use the many thousands of empty homes under their control?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I share his concern about homelessness. For that reason, we are spending more than £100 million over the next three years to provide accommodation for young single people. The Government's initiatives on rough sleeping are having a marked effect on the problem in London.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the Prime Minister aware that doctors working in the health service have said today that his promise to cut waiting lists to two years can be achieved only if desperately ill patients sacrifice their beds to less serious cases who have waited longer? Is he prepared to sanction such manipulation of waiting lists?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen that comment by doctors, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the situation. Long waiting lists are falling fast. Since March 1990, the number of patients waiting more than two years has come down by 47 per cent.—a substantial reduction—and the number waiting longer than one year has reduced by a quarter.
    Mr. Hattersley: During the day, doctors from Nottingham University hospital and Chase Farm hospital Enfield have said that they can meet the target only if seriously ill patients are sacrificed. Is the Prime Minister prepared to abandon the target or the seriously ill patients?
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of abandoning the seriously ill patients. For that reason, we have expanded expenditure on the health service, increased the number of medical staff and introduced initiatives to cut waiting lists. All those are practical methods, all of them are working, and all of them are delivering better health care and will deliver faster health care.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister's wilful refusal to answer a specific question demonstrates the underlying truth of the Government's health service policy: they are interested in public relations, not patient care. No wonder the people of this country know that the health service is not safe in their hands.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense on stilts, and he knows it.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware of the survey published yesterday by the housing charity, Shelter, which revealed that on every working day in Scotland last year 84 children became homeless because the Government had failed to invest enough in decent. affordable rented housing? Is he not ashamed that so many children have been thrown on to the streets of Scotland while he has been Prime Minister? Will he now do something about it by calling a general election and making way for a Labour Government committed to ridding this country of the Tory scourge of homelessness?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that the policies of so many Labour

    141
    authorities leaving properties empty and voids untreated which significantly adds to the level of homelessness; until those Labour authorities operate properly with their housing resources, they will not make inroads into the housing problem.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I inadvertently called two hon. Members from the same side.
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Franks: Will the Prime Minister state clearly and concisely that, irrespective of the place or the audience or the day of the week, he has but one policy for the fourth Trident submarine—to build it, equip it and send it to sea armed for the nation's defence? Will he find time to read recent Official Report s of debates and questions in the House where he will find "We will build a boat", "We won't build a boat" and "We will build a boat but it will have no weapons", all of which is official Labour party policy?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm the Government's commitment to Trident, as so frequently set out in this House. As my hon. Friend makes clear, there is no comparable commitment from the Opposition, whose polices on defence vary from day to day.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if he will his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the repln that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a senior Japanese industrialist has made it clear that if the European Community adopts the social action programme it will be committing industrial suicide? That being so, will my right hon. Friend give the House a commitment that he will not give way on that in the discussions next week? Does he also agree that the European Community should be an evolutionary community, not a revolutionary one?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that we live in an increasingly competitive environment and that much in the social action programme would damage that competitiveness within the European Community—to the interests of the Japanese, the United States and our other competitors. I confirm to my hon. Friend that I am not prepared to see our competitiveness lost in that manner.
    Mr. Wallace: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that at long last common sense prevailed and he was prepared to meet the Dalai Lama of Tibet. Can he give any indication of whether at that meeting he expressed the British Government's support for the United Nations human rights sub-commission report in relation to the expressions of concern about the violations of human rights in Tibet, and what proposals did he make to help the many thousands who have been refugees from Tibet in the past 30 years?
    The Prime Minister: The substantive part of my discussion with the Dalai Lama was specifically concerned with human rights —most notably, though not exclusively, in Tibet. We discussed the present situation and the representations that we had made to the People's Republic of China, and I reaffirmed the fact that I would continue to make such representations.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bottomley: As this is "Youth and Parliament" day, led by the British Youth Council, would my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of investing in the young, overcoming unnecessary disadvantages such as handicap, and giving them the opportunity to contribute fully to a better future for the country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps the most striking expression of the changed opportunities for young people is the increasing number now going into higher education. In 1979 it was one in eight—today it is one in four, and in the future, under the plans now projected, it will be an even higher percentage.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the continued hardship and anxiety facing depositors, creditors and former members of staff of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Will he join me today in thanking the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi for his recent proposals which form part of the crucial negotiations that are taking place? Will he for the first time publicly endorse those negotiations and wish them well? Will he ensure that his Ministers are actively involved in getting the best possible settlement for those who have suffered and who are the real victims of this awful tragedy?
    The Prime Minister: We have repeatedly made it clear that we wish depositors to get back as much of their money as possible. I am pleased with the improvements evident from the negotiations that have taken place. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the recent adjournment is to allow the provisional liquidator to formalise details of the compensation package that he has been negotiating with the Government of Abu Dhabi. That is proceeding and I welcome it. I hope that it will reach a satisfactory conclusion and remove the substantial problem that it has laid over the lives of so many former customers of that bank.
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Speller: On our way to the single market, is it not time to give a healthy nudge to the metrication programme so as to enable our manufacturers and exporters to compete more fairly with our continental rivals?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, there will be a similar system by the end of 1994, which I believe will bring substantial advantages for industry.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Prime Minister explain what attitude he intends to take at Maastricht to co-operation on development issues, and what practical result that will have?
    The Prime Minister: We are content to develop on a co-operative basis a whole range of policies. Where we often have great difficulty with Community proposals is when co-operation is replaced not by agreement but by majority voting on issues of concern to us.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Education and Science on devising tests for seven-year-olds which go back to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic? Will he further commend the Secretary of State for pushing on with the tests, despite the opposition of the National Union of Teachers, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats? The parents of this country will welcome those tests most warmly.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. We are concerned primarily about the quality of education and for that reason I very much welcome the tests. Testing is a crucial part of ensuring that we know what quality of education our young people are achieving, so that if a satisfactory level is not reached, appropriate action can be taken.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Prime Minister fully aware of the importance for many industries in this country, including the textile industry, of a successful outcome of the GATT negotiations? Is he aware that the negotiations have been going on for five years, that we must have a replacement for the multi-fibre arrangement that will enable our textiles to penetrate the markets of countries which do not allow any textiles in and those with tariffs of 200 per cent., and that even the United States has a tariff of 36 per cent. on British wool cloth? Unless those tariffs are diminished our textile industry will have a tough time, and more jobs will be lost.
    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of GATT and of all aspects of the negotiations. In recent weeks, I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter not only in the United States but with a number of colleagues in the European Community. It is clear that both sides will have to make concessions to reach a satisfactory GATT conclusion. It is to be hoped that that will happen before the end of the year.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind Britain's good marine conservation record, will my right hon. Friend join some of us in the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, with a view to saving thousands of whales and dolphins from drift nets, from so-called scientific whaling and from industrial pollution? I have a form here, it will cost my right hon. Friend £5 or £10 to join, and I invite him to do so.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes me an irresistible offer. I have much sympathy with the aims that he set out. The Government have taken a strong lead in international forums to restrict the use of drift nets and to increase the safeguards for whales.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the Prime Minister's duties in the House, will he advise us whether he will stay to listen to the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is the Prime Minister aware that the allocation of trust status to hospitals in Scotland is against the general and political will of the people there? Will he therefore spell out what he decides is democracy in Scotland? It seems that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to ride roughshod over the views of elected members at district, regional and parliamentary level.
    The Prime Minister: I shall not be present for the statement because I have a series of meetings with hon. Members immediately after Question Time.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people who choose to work more than 48 hours per week, and who thereby earn overtime and give greater security to their families, would be most upset if an edict from Brussels took the right to work such overtime away from them, especially as hon. Members would be excluded from the rules, as would the bureaucrats in Europe and all managers and executives?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. It goes wider than just the position of individuals, important though that is. It also covers the competitiveness of British industry and commerce, a point to which I referred some moments ago. If we were to have to suffer all the rigours of the directive to which my hon. Friend refers, it would cost employers substantial sums —billions of pounds—in the next year.

NHS Trusts (Scotland)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang)rose—
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order afterwards.
Mr. Lang: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about NHS trust applications in Scotland.
As the House is aware, applications for NHS trust status in Scotland have been submitted on behalf of the Foresterhill group of hospitals in Aberdeen, the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert and the South Ayrshire group of hospitals. Statutory public consultations have been carried out and I am grateful to all those who responded. I have carefully considered all the comments submitted and I have today written to the sponsors of the applications separately, setting out my decisions. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library.
In all three cases, the responses to the public consultation revealed concern that trusts might not be part of the NHS and that services might be fragmented. Those concerns are misplaced. The position, as the Government have repeatedly made clear, is that trusts will remain part of the national health service. Services will continue as at present to be free at the point of delivery. Trusts will operate in a framework in which health boards will be required to fulfil their statutory obligations to cater for the health needs of all those in their areas. Bearing that in mind, I have closely examined the three proposals and the comments that they have attracted, in accordance with the published criteria which included the likely effect on patient care, the competence of the management teams, including involvement in management of senior professional staff, and the financial viability of the hospitals concerned.
Taking Foresterhill first, a recurring comment in the responses to the trust proposal alluded to the contribution that individuals have made to the development of hospital care in Aberdeen over very many decades. I fully understand that and I recognise the justifiable pride which people in Grampian have in the services provided and in the developments which have taken place in conjunction with the medical school. None of that, for reasons that I have already explained, is put in jeopardy by the trust proposal. Indeed, I am satisfied that the proposed trust, operating from a sound financial basis, with a management team, including clinicians, possessing a proven track record, and with sound proposals for improving facilities, offers a great opportunity to build on the already high reputation for patient care which the hospitals enjoy. I have therefore decided to grant the application.
Hon. Members: Shame!
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lang: I turn to south Ayrshire. The sponsors of the trust proposal see the new Ayr hospital as providing an excellent opportunity for further enhancing the quality of services provided in south Ayrshire. I am sure that they are
146
right. I am satisfied that the proposals for NHS trust status for the south Ayrshire group of hospitals also meet the criteria which I have outlined, and in particular that they will secure benefits for patients and an improved quality of service. Again, therefore, I have decided to grant the application.
Finally, there is the application from the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert. The hospital serves people with a mental handicap. It has been suggested during the consultation period that, because of the vulnerability of that group, the hospital would not be an appropriate candidate for trust status. I do not accept that proposition. NHS trust status is about providing a means for improving care. I see no reason why that should be denied to those hospitals serving the mentally ill or people with a mental handicap.
As with Foresterhill and South Ayrshire, I am satisfied not only that the RSNH is financially viable but that significant benefits for improved patient care will flow from trust status. It is also clear to me that, on past performance, the management are well able to take forward the changes in a very difficult area of health care.
However, the proposals arise at a time when we are beginning to put in place the policy of care in the community, as enunciated in our White Paper "Caring for People". Work on the development of joint planning between local authorities and health boards and the preparation of individual care plans has begun. But more activity on those fronts is expected in the coming months. The resources of the RSNH management team may not be sufficient to cope with the additional administrative burden of implementing simultaneously "Caring for People" and the immediate transition to trust status. Consequently, I have decided, in granting the application, that the start-up date will be April 1993.
To sum up, I have concluded that all three applications will lead to improved patient care; that all three will have the required management, including clinician participation, to operate free of health board control and that all three are sufficiently robust financially. I shall therefore be bringing forward shortly the necessary orders to establish trusts at Foresterhill and South Ayrshire in April 1992 and at the Royal Scottish National hospital in April 1993.
The three units face a challenge, but one which offers the promise of improved patient care in their areas. Whatever political differences exist on policy, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to offer them every support in that endeavour.
Mr. Donald Dewar: There is no justification for what the Secretary of State is doing. Foresterhill, the South Ayrshire general hospital and the Royal Scottish National hospital should not be forced out of the main stream of the health service. It is a betrayal —a victory for prejudice over common sense. The Secretary of State has toed his party's line but undermined confidence in the health service. He is once more distancing himself from the people of Scotland.
The Secretary of State claims that opting out is in the best interests of patients. On what does he base that claim? Does he know better than doctors, nurses and the other health service staff whose life work has been delivering the service? Does the Secretary of State remember the response of the Grampian area medical committee, which

147
expressed concern that the additional resources consumed by the trust will put at risk priority specialties such as psychiatry, geriatric medicine and physical disability?
The Secretary of State claims that the basis of opting out is to make hospitals more responsive to the local community. How can that be so when today's diktat is a contemptuous dismissal of the community's united protest? Did the right hon. Gentleman not canvass in Kincardine and Deeside'? How does he reconcile today's announcement with the fact that consultants voted against the opt-out scheme by 87 votes to two in Foresterhill and by 50 to nine in South Ayrshire?
Is it not reducing consultation to the level of farce when the responses to the consultation, together with the polling evidence, show overwhelming opposition? In Ayrshire this July, Systems Three found that four out of five of those polled were strongly opposed to the scheme. In Grampian, 80 per cent. of general practitioners gave it the thumbs down.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the promise of Bill Fyfe, chair of the Ayrshire and Arran health board:
"the decision rests and has always rested with the hospital doctors. It cannot be otherwise: self governing will happen only with the doctors' approval and only if they are convinced that patients will benefit."
I do not mourn for Mr. Fyfe, but is he to be branded a dishonest man because of the Government's insensitivity in railroading through these unwanted applications?
Just a fortnight ago, on 14 November, Councillor Mike Hastie, who is the Tory leader on Aberdeen district council, was reported as saying that he could not believe that the Government would now push through the measures. In his view—I quote him precisely—
"it would be an act of sheer folly and I do not believe Mr. Lang is capable of that."
He knows better now.
Does the Minister not recognise the dangers of fragmenting the health service and destroying the planning framework; the cost of ever-increasing bureaucracy; the reduction in choice for the doctor; the fear that this is a road that leads to a two-tier system in which money comes first and the Health Service is relegated to a safety-net, fallback provision?
In detail, will the Minister give the capital debt figure that will have to be shouldered by these three hospitals? What percentage of this, in each case, is public dividend capital and what percentage interest-bearing debt? Will he announce now the external financing limit for each hospital? Is he satisfied that the complications arising from the ownership of a large part of the Foresterhill site by Aberdeen university have been overcome?
It is a disgrace that the Royal Scottish National hospital at Larbert is included in this misbegotten scheme. A hospital dealing with the mentally handicapped is by no stretch of the imagination a candidate for the market mechanism. The postponement to 1993 simply to await the Government's belated funding of community care will overcome none of the difficulties.
Finally, may I make it unambiguously clear that Labour will reverse the decisions on these three hospitals announced today and will do so immediately after the general election? The policy is fundamentally wrong. It commands no support and will damage the Health Service. This is vandalism, all the more wounding because it is authorised by the Secretary of State who is supposed to
148
protect Scotland's interests. The scheme will not survive this Government, and will, indeed, contribute to their downfall.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has not had the advantage that I have had of studying these applications with very great care, and it is quite clear that he has not addressed the issue in any great substance. He talks about the hospitals being forced out of the main stream of the Health Service. That is precisely the kind of distortions and misleading implications that he and his party have placed upon this exercise throughout the consultation process, which have led to so many people misunderstanding what it is all about.
It is hardly surprising that the national opinion poll carried out in Aberdeen showed that 75 per cent. of the people asked thought that it was about privatisation, and that in Ayrshire a Systems Three poll showed 74 per cent. thought that it was about privatisation or opting out of the health service, because the Labour party was putting about pamphlets saying such things as
"Now the Government is forcing our hospitals to opt out of the NHS."
That is simply not true. We are not forcing them out of the NHS; they will remain in the NHS, and the services will remain free at the point of delivery. Indeed, I am persuaded that the central criteria against which I have had to measure these applications will be met, and that patient care will be advanced very considerably. Greater autonomy and greater local flexibility, greater local ownership and decision making, will be of advantage to the hospitals which are receiving trust status.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the degree of support from medical staff. In the case of Foresterhill, all the main clinical departments have given their support to the proposal—a proposal that has been drawn up by a multidisciplinary team. In the case of Larbert, there has been support for the application from the Institute of Health Services Management, the Forth Valley college of nursing and midwifery and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. In the case of South Ayrshire, there has been support from a majority of consultants in general surgery, orthopaedics and radiology. As for fragmenting the health service, that is not true. When the hon. Gentleman reflects on the fact that 97 per cent. of the services of the trusts will be purchased by the health boards he will see how self-evident is the nonsense that he talks about fragmentation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a two-tier system. I have been looking at the Labour party document for health in Scotland, "A Prescription for Change". It says that Labour will
"continue devolution of management to unions within health boards."
It will "devolve budgets" —[HON. MEMBERS: "To units."] Yes, to units. It will
"devolve budgets to units, giving them a significant measure of control over their own finances. The budget will be flexed in order to take account of work done."
If we are contemplating a two-tier service, so is the Labour party. The fact is that we are contemplating not a two-tier health service but a better health service. These proposals will help to achieve it.
Mr. George Younger: Is my right hon. Friend aware—
Hon. Members: Is he a Member?
Mr. Speaker: Order. He is a former Secretary of State.
Mr. Younger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Ayrshire we are extremely proud of the new hospital which was built from start to finish within five years, a record for anywhere in the country? We expect it to produce even better services in the future. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his announcement today means that the hospital will be under more local management than it was? Will he confirm also that it will remain entirely within the national health service and that anyone who needs treatment will get it, as now, free of charge?
In contrast to the irresponsible and negative remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), whose responsibility in his party for destroying the consultation process is well known, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in future, the objective of the new hospital will be to produce even better services? He can be assured, if that is so, that even those who disagreed with his decision will work together to make it a great success.
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I agree entirely with absolutely every point that he has made so effectively. Among the benefits to patients that will be derived from trust status for south Ayrshire, I envisage the improved use of facilities, mainly theatres, enhancing cost-effectiveness, increasing throughput and reducing waiting times, upgrading the facilities at Ballochmyle and Biggart, as well as investment, for example, in a CAT scanner and a short-stay surgical unit, and perhaps in the longer-term investment in phase 2 being brought forward.
Those are some of the improvements that can be looked forward to at South Ayrshire under trust status. I entirely share my right hon. Friend's view that we are concerned about improving health care and benefits to patients, which I believe trust status at South Ayrshire will achieve.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that there are those of us who have never made the point that trust status is about opting out of the national health service, but have said that it is about local accountability and the views of local people? Is it not also about turning a caring service into a business? Is not the Secretary of State misrepresenting the consultation process when he denounces the people who have submitted representations? Indeed, all the consultants, doctors, local health councils and general practitioners have expressed their opposition.
Does not the Secretary of State recognise that there is no confidence in the community in the type of managers he proposes to put in control of the trusts? He knows that they are regarded simply as Tory party stooges put there to do a job on behalf of central office rather than to represent the interests of the people. Will he accept that in a democracy, when people say no, they mean no?
Mr. Lang: That was an uncharacteristic and, I have to assume, an unintended attack by the hon. Gentleman on the present management qualities of the Foresterhill group of hospitals. I have a high regard for Foresterhill and what it has achieved in the last few years under this Government. The aims of the trust will be to build on the achievements, to become more responsive, to build a closer local link with the community and closer links with the health councils and with the GPs, to upgrade wards and facilities in the hospital, to upgrade theatres and
150
equipment and to build on the success of recent years. Of course, it is about greater and more local accountability and greater flexibility—we have that in common—and that is what the trust will deliver. I am confident that the quality of the people who will be running it will be excellent.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his scandalous decision will be greeted by outrage not only in Aberdeen and the surrounding area by everyone connected with the medical and caring professions but by everyone right across the political spectrum in the north-east of Scotland, including the hapless Marcus Humphrey? Is he aware that his information is totally wrong and that nothing in the application shows that patient care and services will improve under the trusts? Is he not aware that every specialty at the Foresterhill site, with the exception of laboratory services, voted overwhelmingly to reject the trust? Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman's delay in coming to the House to announce his decision is because, when he looked at the facts, he was minded to reject the application but was told by the puppet master sitting next to him that he had to make a political decision?
Mr. Lang: I have taken the decision to approve the trusts. It was my decision. I was required to take it in accordance with the published criteria. When I was considering the applications from Foresterhill and others, I made it clear that I would not approve an application unless I was personally persuaded that the criteria would be met. I regard the most important criterion as an improvement in the delivery of patient care by the hospital in question. After the closest and most detailed scrutiny, I am absolutely persuaded that that will be achieved. I am perfectly happy to be judged on the performance of those trusts in the years ahead—[HON. MEMBERS: "You will be."] Indeed, I intend to remain very close to the development of the trust and to its inception on 1 April to ensure that all that has been promised will be delivered.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the structure of the health service in Scotland is somewhat different from that in England and Wales, and that our area health boards are very much closer to the hospital management than is the case elsewhere? How has my right hon. Friend come to judge the weight of opinion between those who wish to stay but to move forward into an area of ever better care in those hospitals against those who want a move into a future of some uncertainty?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The health boards in Scotland are very close to the hospitals, which is why I set considerable store by the approval that had been granted to the applications by the Grampian health board in the case of Foresterhill and by the Ayrshire and Arran health board in the case of South Ayrshire. Their approval and commendation of the applications has featured in my consideration.
My hon. Friend talked about the future, but we do not need to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. Some hospitals south of the border already have trust status. In Yeovil, in the constituency of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party, the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months has been reduced by 45 per cent., and the total waiting list is down by 10 per cent.

151
Since April, that trust has received 53 letters of complaint and 1,344 letters of praise. I look forward to a comparable result for trust-status hospitals in Scotland.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the people in the Forth Valley health board area will greet his decision with great dismay, especially the families of the mentally handicapped patients in that hospital, who do not have a vote, could not be consulted and who are now greatly exercised by the prospect of being cast into the free market system? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be outrage tonight in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) at his betrayal of the trust that has been placed in that hospital by the people in its care?
Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the consultants and management were unanimous in their support for trust status for Larbert. The possible developments that the trust could achieve include more emphasis on research, on training and education, on challenging behaviour, and on autism and brain damage. The trust contemplates many benefits for patients, including continuing the systematic assessments and the reductions in institutional accommodation, and has plans to break up the large wards and to increase the staff-patient ratio. Does the hon. Gentleman really want to set his face against the improvements that trust status could deliver?
Mr. Dennis Canavan: How on earth can the Secretary of State justify his disgraceful decisions, particularly on the Royal Scottish National hospital in my constituency, where the application for trust status was opposed by virtually the entire community, the patients' relatives association and 96 per cent. of the staff? Is the Secretary of State so arrogant that he thinks that he knows better than the people who are actively involved in the care of the mentally handicapped? Is he so politically inept that he virtually signals to the people of Scotland that the only thing which will stop this arrant nonsense is the next general election, when he and his cronies will be swept out of power and the interests of patients will be put before political dogma?
Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman sincerely believed that, he would not show so much artificial outrage. He ignores the views of the managers and consultants in the health service. I can understand why some in the medical profession express anxiety. They understand the status quo and do not like the uncertainty of change. There was a similar reaction when we reformed GP contracts, but now, with experience of the contracts, that anxiety is disappearing. There was anxiety about the terms and conditions of future employment. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the terms and conditions of junior doctors will continue to be negotiated nationally.
I see for Larbert the prospect of all the changes that I outlined in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). If I did not believe that those changes would benefit patients, I would not have approved the application.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decisions on these hospitals will be remembered by many? As on so many of the decisions taken in the past 12 years, such as the sale of council
152
houses and other matters which the Opposition opposed, they have had to change their tune. They will do so on NHS trusts, with the passage of time. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will look equally thoroughly and carefully at any proposals from hospitals in Tayside?
Mr. Lang: Yes, I will. Indeed, other hospitals have expressed interest in growing and developing. I expect further applications to come in during the next year and, with time, a growing number of applications as the benefits are seen to come through.
Mr. George Foulkes Carrick: Did not Donald MacNeill, the chief executive-designate of the South Ayrshire trust, give the game away last week when he compared trust hospitals with
"those remaining within the mainstream NHS"?
Is that not the truth? Are not trusts the first step towards privatisation? Will the Secretary of State confirm that there were 226 submissions in Ayrshire, 215 of which were against trust status, including 33 from medical, nursing and professional organisations? Why does he arrogate to himself the claim to know more about patient care than all those professionals? Is he not handing over public assets to a few of his Conservative cronies? That amounts to legalised theft and corruption.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically over the top. I do not arrogate to myself a knowledge superior to that of the professionals, but I have had imposed on me the obligation to exercise a quasi-judicial function in assessing applications. I have done that after the most careful scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of submissions. I have had more submissions than he said about South Ayrshire, but mostly they were tear-out strips from newspapers and from people who had been —
Mr. Brian Wilson: That is a lie!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, that he must withdraw that comment.
Mr. Wilson: But it is true.
Mr. Speaker: In this Chamber we keep our standards. "Lie" is an unparliamentary word.
Mr. Wilson: The statement of fact is that there were 226 submissions —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not interested in that. Will the hon. Member withdraw that allegation?
Mr. Wilson: I want the opportunity to state the fact, in which case I will withdraw the statement.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might have listened to what I said. I said that there had been substantially more submissions than the number he gave. The figure that I have is about 800 submissions, but most of them were tear-out strips from newspapers. I expect that the people who made them were influenced by the Labour party's "Standard No. 17", which was circulated among people in the area. It said:
"What would opting out mean? It would mean our new South Ayrshire hospital leaving the NHS as we know it and would pave the way for a two-tier health service in Ayrshire."

153
It is precisely that type of distortion—misleading and alarming people—that has led to the public reaction. The trouble is that too many people in the Labour party are more concerned with scaring than with caring.
Mr. William McKelvey: The people of Ayrshire will be bitterly disappointed by the Secretary of State's announcement from the Dispatch Box. However, they will not be surprised, because they know that, from the beginning, the consultative process has been an absolute rigged farce. It was undemocratic and the Government were not telling the truth when they said that they would look at all the submissions in a fair and honest manner. At least the Under-Secretary of State had the guts to say that at the Dispatch Box.
Putting aside the postcards that were sent to the Secretary of State, how many of the 226 written submissions were of the quality that he desired? Perhaps the five, six or seven which were in favour of trust status. The Labour party will win the next election. The South Ayrshire hospital will revert to its previous status. Managers of trust hospitals will be judged on their ability to manage and not as apparatchiks of a political dogma.
Mr. Lang: It is the ability of the proposed applicants to manage the trusts which has been borne in mind among the criteria that I have had to consider. As I said earlier, we are also able to look at the successes being achieved by other trust status hospitals elsewhere. In Kingston, for example, the list of those waiting more than 12 months has been reduced by 77 per cent. and 1,600 more patients were treated than was planned. In the Northern General hospital NHS trust, six new consultants have been appointed this year and 95 per cent. of patients surveyed are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the service provided. That is my ambition for trust status hospitals in Scotland, and that is what I believe that we shall achieve.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland remember that on 16 March, in an interview published in The Press and Journal (Aberdeen), he said that the option for trust status existed if the local will were in favour? How on earth does he now reconcile that statement with the fact that he has ignored submissions from wherever they may have come, be it consultants or pensioners, GPs or the disabled, the elected district or regional councillors or Members of Parliament? Is it the case that he merely dismisses those submissions with which he does not agree and proceeds in an autocratic fashion?
How on earth is it that, in London, where teaching hospitals are so highly regarded, the issue of trust status has been postponed indefinitely, but in Foresterhill a key teaching hospital is being asked to take trust status? How much money has his Department spent in conjunction with the health board on those applications? How much money is being spent on future applications? How many are in the pipeline and how many are on his desk?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady will find the answer to her question about expenditure in a written answer which has been published in Hansard. She referred to some applications in London with which she is especially preoccupied. I have responsibility for assessing applica-tions in Scotland. I have assessed each application
154
individually on its merits, carefully, against published criteria. It is by comparison with the published criteria and all the information available to me that I have reached a judgment. It would be quite wrong if I were to base my view solely on submissions from members of the public who have been unduly influenced by misleading information from other quarters.
The hon. Lady will know that there is an attractive £60 million new hospital in Elgin—the West Grampian unit —and that may well be among those expressing an interest in trust status in due course. I will give the same careful scrutiny to that application, if it reaches me, as I shall give to applications from Princess Margaret Rose orthopaedic hospital, from Lothian college of nursing, from the Victoria infirmary in Glasgow or from any others which express interest. I am concerned to ensure that we continue to build on our excellent record of improving health care in Scotland.
Mr. Nicol Stephen: What view did the Secretary of State take of the outcome of the Kincardine and Deeside by-election in reaching his decision? He will be aware that all five candidates in that by-election were opposed to the Foresterhill opt-out. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is creating in Scotland a clear position of elective dictatorship? The situation is opposed by Conservatives in the north-east of Scotland and he is showing contempt for the people of the whole of Scotland. But he is taking one major step forward today, and that is a step towards the cliff of political oblivion for the Conservative party in Scotland.
What is to happen to the land and buildings owned by Aberdeen university on the Foresterhill site? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to compensate or confiscate?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman raised that final issue as a scare during the by-election campaign—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is that the ownership will remain the same. The health board's interest will transfer to the trust. No difficulty will arise over that. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a new Member of Parliament, he should be more concerned with the possibility of improving the delivery of health care to his constituents. That is what I am concerned with, and that is how I have measured the application.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Kincardine and Deeside by-election, in the campaign for which he said in his special health service circular:
"Opting out is a dangerous first step towards market economics and privatisation of our health service."
I know, and I hope he knows, that that is not true. Indeed, his party leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said:
"I do not believe that the…Government's…intention is, or ever has been, to privatise the health service. Indeed, I believe that those who insist on scaremongering have done the Mselves and the NHS no good by concentrating on the 'privatisation' scare."
If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to his party leader.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State now recognise that his unworthy but all too predictable statement that the 226 representations on the south Ayrshire opt-out included newspaper forms was in direct contradiction of veracity? Will he further recognise that his announcement today, while totally predictable—nobody ever believed that a genuine

155
consultation process was taking place—represents one of the final death knells for the discredited band of brigands who represent the Scottish Conservative party?
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in Ayr alone, the Conservative party is already being torn apart? Does he further appreciate that, throughout Ayrshire, people recognise that any additional assets that are poured into the South Ayrshire hospitals to make them work will be at the expense of the national health service in the rest of Ayrshire?
Does the right hon. Gentleman mercifully recognise that none of this will come to pass because, within days of this misguided, ideological order—introduced at the behest of the arch-agent of prejudice sitting beside him, the Minister of State—coming into being, there will be a change of government and none of it will happen? Will he also recognise that I have never believed that there are no Tories in Scotland, for one Tory has spoken for Conservative respectability in Scotland, and he is the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)? The further the Government depart from that line, the more their fate is sealed, and the more richly that fate is earned.
Mr. Lang: I give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not hear what I said, not once but twice, perhaps because of the noise coming from his hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), seated beside him, who referred to 236 admissions. I said that I had had rather more than that, and I referred to having had about 800, the large majority of which were tear-out newspaper slips, and a large majority of those would have been influenced by the leaflet, the Labour party "Standard", with its misleading, scaremongering, alarmist nonsense.
Surely the hon. Gentleman, as an Ayrshire Member, is interested in a trust that may be able to upgrade the facilities in the hospitals in the trust. Surely he is interested in a trust that is willing to carry out further investment, keen to achieve the further development of a quality programme involving multi-disciplinary, quality action groups. Those are the tangible improvements in health care that can be achieved by trust status. The hon. Gentleman should withhold judgment and hope that I am right, and that we shall succeed in achieving those results.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that today's statement clearly shows that he is a prisoner of the right wing of his political party, which is responsible for the demise of his party in Scotland? Is he aware that his announcement today is not a triumph for the philosophy of trusts but a blow against democracy, consultation and the will of the people? Does not he realise that, in making his announcement, he has, to some extent, signed his political death warrant?
Mr. Lang: No, I do not, because I believe that the electorate will judge by results and that, even before the trusts are up and running, they will begin to see the benefits that will flow from the trusts. The hon. Gentleman said that my statement was a blow against consultation. There was a three-month thorough consultation period for each specific trust, during which detailed application forms were sent out extensively. In the case of Larbert, they were sent out to every applicant who sought them. I have looked carefully over a period of weeks at those applications, and have reached the view that they deserve to be granted.
156
I am proud to be a member of a Government who have increased health spending in real terms since 1979 by nearly 40 per cent., treated 900,000 more people in Scotland last year than in the year in which we came into office, increased the number of nurses by more than 9,000 and now pay them 41 per cent. more in real terms than when we came into office. The hon. Gentleman should look back at the Labour party's record in government before he starts to criticise ours.
Mr. John Marshall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ignoring the scaremongering campaign conducted by Opposition Members? Is he aware that a similar campaign was carried out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) against trust hospitals in England, which have now delivered more patient care, cut waiting lists and been innovative in the service that they offer to patients? Is he surprised that the hon. Member for Livingston now spends less time talking about trust hospitals than producing racing tips for the Glasgow Herald? Moreover, is not the hon. Gentleman equally bad at both?
Mr. Lang: All I can say on that is that, as regards the delivery of patient care in the areas from which we have received trust applications, we are on to a winner.
My right hon. Friend represents a seat in the south and he will know that the Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust intends to improve the pay of more than 1,200 lower-paid workers by 6 per cent., and that it will treat some 6,000 more patients than planned. There are many other examples of health trusts in England that are already up and running a year ahead of those in Scotland, from whose experience we can benefit. We can draw considerable encouragement from the improved quality of their health care.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: It is interesting that the Secretary of State does not claim that he has a majority of public opinion on his side but merely that the very large majority against trust status was ill informed and listened to Labour propaganda. Can the Minister assure the House that, if a general election goes against his wishes and people cross their ballot papers having been influenced by Labour propaganda, he will accept that result?
Mr. Lang: Of course I will accept an election result, as anyone would. That is rather a silly question on such an important occasion. If Labour Members abandon the trusts, which, from the terminology that I have quoted, are so close to their own policy, would they but acknowledge the fact, it is not the Conservative party that would be the loser but the delivery of patient care in Scotland.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that his disgraceful announcement will add to the fear in Edinburgh at the suggestion that the Princess Margaret Rose hospital might also be granted trust status? Is he aware that that hospital was threatened with closure because of the Government's underfunding of the service in Lothian and that it now seems to be faced with a choice of closure or opting for trust status? Is it not a measure of the damage that the Government are prepared to inflict on the health service in Lothian that, having closed the internationally famous Longmore hospital, they are now prepared even to close the Princess Margaret Rose?
Mr. Lang: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not because the Princess Margaret Rose hospital was threatened with closure. If that were the case, no trust application would be acceptable and none would be considered.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Using his budget, will my right hon. Friend be able to afford to get a bus to take hon. Members down to my constituency in south Dorset to see the results of trust status? Two years ago, I felt exactly the same as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and was worried about the health service policy that we were introducing. It is about time that Scotland saw the results, so that it does not miss the bus on this issue.
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am absolutely sure that we can draw considerable comfort from the experience of hospitals in England. I am also confident that the trust hospitals where applications were approved today will soon be able to demonstrate for themselves the benefits to patients.
Mr. Alistair Darling: In the light of his announcement this afternoon, will the Secretary of State confirm that any hospital that expresses an interest in opting out will be granted its wish at the end of the day, and it will not matter what the public, doctors, nurses or anyone else thinks? The minute an application is made to opt out, the hospital is as good as opted out. That being the case, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Princess Margaret Rose hospital in Edinburgh will be the next opted-out hospital?
Mr. Lang: No, of course I cannot confirm that, because I have not yet seen an application from that hospital. When I do, I shall first want the view of Lothian health board, which I expect to have investigated the matter thoroughly, and I shall then wish to examine the application myself. I would not wish to deny the people of Edinburgh the benefits of trust status if any application that reached me contained demonstrable advantages.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the lack of medical support. Perhaps he did not hear me state that the heads of all the main clinical departments at Foresterhill hospital have given their support and that, in south Ayrshire, the majority of consultants in general surgery, orthopaedics and radiology have also done so. It is evident from the second wave of applications in England that there is a growing groundswell of support from consultants as they begin to realise the benefits of trust status.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does not the Secretary of State realise that his chilling announcement today will send a shiver of fear down the spine of every patient in Scotland and most doctors, nurses and health staff? If he is so confident in the public process, why does he not publish the full business plan, so that we can all see it? Why does he instead take his decisions in the bunker of St. Andrew's house, surrounded by acolytes who do not represent anyone in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: This canard about lack of information has been running throughout the consultation process. Applications have been readily available in great detail, the contracts will be available for public inspection, and the annual accounts of the trusts will be published in the same way as annual accounts of health boards are
158
published. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to claim that he is not getting enough information. The most convincing argument for the hon. Gentleman should lie in the results. I am persuaded that they will improve dramatically and that there will be a continuing flow of good news and benefits for patients from the trust applications.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State accept that, whether the decision is right or wrong, there is a strong argument for hastening slowly, so that people can evaluate the optimistic claims that the right hon. Gentleman has made for trusts this afternoon? Therefore, will he give a guarantee that the next wave will be discouraged for at least three to five years, so that the experiments can be properly evaluated?
Mr. Lang: I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to enable the benefits of trust status, if available —as I believe they will be—to flow through to others. The hon. Gentleman can hardly accuse us of moving too fast. First, we are a year behind England; secondly, I am approving two applications for implementation in 1992 and one for implementation in 1993, as compared with 156 or 157 applications that have already been approved in England. That is a sensible pace, which I expect to accelerate. I think that more applications will be submitted as the benefits of trust status become apparent to more people.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has told the House that statutory public consultations were carried out in all three of the applications, and that, in three out of three of the consultations, public opinion was totally ignored. On Tayside, local NHS staff and patients, and local people, are totally opposed to a local management proposal to consider allowing Ninewells, Dundee royal infirmary and King's Cross hospitals to opt out of health board control. Since Tayside people now know that their view will be equally ignored by the Government, will the Secretary of State confirm that the only option that remains for Tayside is, at the next general election, to kick out the two remaining Tory Members of Parliament in Tayside who have given him such servile support this afternoon?
Mr. Lang: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to consider any possible improvements or changes of any kind to the health service. The reality is that every change that we have introduced in the health service during recent years was attacked or criticised, or caused concern, when it was originally announced. But, step by step, as each of them has been implemented, the benefits have begun to become apparent and are now apparent in increasing numbers, many of which I have already outlined to the House—including the increase in the number of patients treated, shorter waiting lists, more nurses and doctors, better pay and 74 major new hospital developments completed, with 7,500 extra beds, 19 under construction and 18 at the planning stage. That is evidence of our commitment to the health service. Had we not believed that trust status would lead to a genuine advance in patient care, we would not have embarked upon it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Why does the Secretary of State so flagrantly disregard the principles and good practices of genuine consultation on

159
matters of this kind? May I remind him that, many months ago, the overwhelming majority of consultants at the Inverclyde royal hospital completely rejected the concept of opting out? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's disreputable approach to consultation is not at all welcome on the lower Clyde. If, in the few months left to him, he brings that shabby approach to consultation to the lower Clyde, one result will he the doubling of the majority of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
Mr. Lang: What I think is a shabby approach to consultation is to mislead and alarm people with distorting statements printed in party literature, circulated to cause concern, fear and anxiety, and then just to count the number of tear-off slips or pre-printed postcards that have been circulated. Consultation involves weighing as well as counting the advice that is sent in. I have carefully weighed the advice against the published criteria, and I am completely persuaded that the trust applications will improve health care in Scotland. If I had adopted the same closed mind that the Opposition have, the health service, instead of advancing as it has done all these years, would be retreating.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Secretary of State witnessed the stampede of English Tory Members from the Chamber which delayed his statement, was he not embarrassed by the fact that he depends on their votes to ram his policies down the throats of the Scottish people? How can he start a consultation exercise saying that he will abide by the popular will in the north-east of Scotland and end up by ignoring, distorting or rigging the outcome? Does he accept that there is one popular consultation which he will not be able to rig because, long before the damage is done to the hospitals, the political damage to the Secretary of State for Scotland will be terminal?
Mr. Lang: Something that the hon. Gentleman may never learn is that being in government is about taking decisions, making choices and being judged by them. I am willing to be judged by my approval of the applications and by what I believe will be the improved delivery of health care in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that, when that is proved, the hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently embarrassed— to use his word—to come to the House and apologise.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetlands): The Secretary of State did not respond to the request of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) for the publication of business plans for the various hospitals. Will he secure the publication of the business plan for Foresterhill? Can he confirm the rumours circulating in Grampian and the Isles that some capital sum would be made available to Foresterhill if it opted out? If so, will that money come from other parts of the Scottish health service budget? Does he accept that the court of Aberdeen university has been told that it is not an option for it to carry on as it has done before? Is the right hon. Gentleman deaf to what has been said to him?
Mr. Lang: On the contrary: I have paid great attention and care to what has been said to me. It will be for the trusts to decide what details of their business plans they can publish, but there will understandably be an element of confidentiality.
160
As to the apportionment of resources, the health board will continue to have the statutory obligation to ensure the delivery of health care in its area. It will enter into a contract with the trust,, and I will be responsible for approving the trust's external financing limit. That exercise will be conducted in a responsible and sensible way, to ensure the delivery of improved patient care not only through trust hospitals but in all the other areas for which the health board will remain responsible in Grampian.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman present for the statement?—[HON. MEMBERS:"Yes"] All right—I know.
Mr. Faulds: I am surprised that you, Mr. Speaker, have not heard me in the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: I have—that is the trouble.
Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful.
Will the Secretary of State attempt to be honest? Will the projected changes have the support of the public in Scotland?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Lang: In due course, they will.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to the answers, I will call him to put his question.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Given that I have been branded —within your parliamentary authority, Mr. Speaker—a "brigand" by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and as "subservient" by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—which I would not have thought was one of my more obvious characteristics; and having within the authority of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman surely means within my authority, and I do not want him to be branded with a reputation for being long-winded.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley suggested that the present bureaucracy was guilty of theft and corruption.
Mr. Foulkes: Correct.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the biggest theft and corruption occurred when bequests to the national health service were spent on things for which they were not bequeathed? Will he tell Opposition Members why he thinks that it is better that money should be spent on the bureaucrats running hospitals and not on those who deserve to receive proper treatment in them?
Mr. Lang: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend's last point. One of the benefits of trust status will be that management will be much closer to the point of delivery and more flexible, and that there will be closer local contact with the community being served. That will reduce bureaucracy and allow more money to go straight to the point of patient care.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Secretary of State failed to answer several important questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), so I will repeat them. What is the originating capital debt of each of the three institutions? What percentage will be interest-bearing debt, and what percentage will be public dividend capital? When will the Secretary of State announce the external financing limits for all three?
The Secretary of State spoke of the promised improvements in opted-out hospitals. Is it not the case that such improvements are available anyway, and are not dependent on a hospital opting out? Is it not the case also that opting-out hospitals simply restrict patient and doctor choice, waste resources in an acute bureaucracy, and create a two-tier health service?
I make it clear once again that the incoming Labour Government will immediately return those hospitals to the people of the country and to their health boards. Health care will once again be about treating patients, not perpetrating outdated dogma, as is the case with Government policy.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of financial questions, which will be resolved and to some extent announced as the public expenditure round is completed and the health budget announced. As to general policy, on 13 June the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) was quoted in the Glasgow Herald as saying:
"The increased funding to which we are committed will be used to create a reserve at health board level which can be released in the course of the financial year to those hospitals who have out-performed and delivered high activity levels in the priority areas."
That is a dramatic departure from the image that Labour seeks to project. It is the image of a party that is determined to create some kind of two-tier health service. We are committed to delivering a better health service, in which trust status will pay an important part.
am confident that that will be achieved from greater local ownership of the decision-making process and resource allocation and from greater autonomy and flexibility. I have no doubt that residents of the areas to be served by the trusts will be the beneficiaries in the years ahead.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Midlands, West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman seeking to put a question?
Mr. Clarke: A question, yes. I did not seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I had not heard the statement, but I was here before the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn).
Mr. Speaker: It is a bit late, but I will call the hon. Gentleman, although it does make life difficult for the Chair.
Mr. Clarke: Given the Secretary of State's quite outrageous answers this afternoon, may I ask two questions? First, among the tragic decisions that he has announced, does he not realise that there will be great sadness, to say the least, about his decision on Larbert, which will affect mentally handicapped people and people who have no advocates? If he accepts that community care will be postponed until 1993, why does he not at least postpone that decision?
Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman crows about the success of trusts in England, why does he not take on board the evidence that has been given to the Select Committee on Health, on which I have given many hours of membership? Does he not accept that that is a shambles that he should not be seeking to inflict on the people of Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I shall not repeat all the benefits expected for the Larbert trust. As the hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of my statement, he will no doubt read them in Hansard. He says that there is no support for the application. I listed a number of bodies that support it, and said that all the management and consultants do so. In addition, positive comments have been made by the Greater Glasgow health board and, following the consultation, Forth Valley health board has endorsed the application. They expressed confidence in their professional support, their management teams and their strategic skills.
For the reasons that I gave in my statement, which again the hon. Gentleman will have to read in Hansard, the application is being approved, but deferred until April 1993. I am confident that it too will be able to deliver improved benefits. I do not think that it would be right to deny those benefits to those suffering from mental handicap.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
That the Clackmannan District Council (Vesting of Central Regional Council Land) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Question agreed to.

Points of Order
4.32 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) rose on a bogus point of order and made certain allegations about the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who had attended a function at which the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not present. The allegation was completely untrue but was widely reported. Subsequently, the hon. Member for Amber Valley went into the Members' Tea Room and was told in no uncertain terms by a number of my hon. Friends how unacceptaable such conduct was. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Are you going to be him up?"] That would not be very difficult, would it?
The following day, certain newspapers carried reports of the second incident in the Tea Room, quoting extensively the hon. Member for Amber Valley and one of his hon. Friends, who I understand was not present for that or for the previous incident.
You, Mr. Speaker, will remember when it was possible for hon. Members to disagree with each other away from the Chamber—occasionally using industrial language—without the more sneaky Conservative Members running to the press.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?
Mr. Snape: Will you, through the usual channels, draw the attention of the more senior, and perhaps responsible, members of the Conservative party to this conduct and warn them that, if it continues, it will provoke widespread retaliation from this side?
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I am dealing with one thing at a time.
This happened last week. I have drawn the matter to the attention of the usual channels. Time was —not very long ago—when conversations in dining rooms, here and outside, and in tea rooms were not brought into the Chamber. I hope that we can get back to those days. It is not necessary to use such ammunition in arguing our policies.
Sir Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and for the avoidance of doubt. As the person ultimately responsible for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' dinner, may I make it plain that, when it became known to me after the dinner that the hon. Gentleman had left—so little disturbance did his departure cause —I made inquiries about what had taken place. I found out that, because of late changes, the seating plan in the reception room did not correspond —
Mr. Dick Douglas: You did not do that with me, Mr. Speaker.
Sir Hal Miller: —with the menu which had been printed earlier. I therefore caused the president to send an apology to the hon. Gentleman the following morning. When I read the erroneous reports in the press, I made a statement about the correct position, which is that the hon. Gentleman had left the dinner making the least fuss possible, even though there had been a place available for him.
Mr. Speaker: I think that that disposes of the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I would not normally go back to something that happened last Wednesday.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a new point of order. May I seek your guidance on the application of a convention of the House and, for that matter, may I ask you to look at written question 126, which you will find on page 662 of the Order Paper? The question concerns the future of Craigtoun hospital, which is in my constituency, and it stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
If the terms of the question seem familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, it is because I tabled a question in precisely the same terms last week, but it was met with a reply to the effect that a statement would be made shortly. Is it a convention of the House that, when an hon. Member raises an issue about his constituency, it is then appropriate for the Government to plant a question in the name of another hon. Member, who has probably never seen or visited the hospital involved, in order that the Government may have the benefit of introducing into the public domain the necessary information which is of great importance to my constituency?
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
I am not responsible for answers that are given, but, as I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman had a holding answer. Therefore, it seems to me that a further question on the same issue should not be on the Order Paper.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Member for Amber Valley has been mentioned, I shall call him, but then we must end the matter.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) left the dinner as quietly as is consistent with his character. However —
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sort of comment is inflammatory. The sadness of present-day politics is the lack of the courtesy that we used to have in this place.
Mr. Oppenheim rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can deal with these matters courteously.
Mr. Oppenheim: An attack was made on me by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), whose claims about what happened in the Tea Room were completely untrue. I am the one who should receive the apology, because when I went into the Tea Room I said nothing but was attacked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East who uttered oaths about me and my mother. I did nothing in the Tea Room to provoke him, but it was he reported the conversation to the press, not me.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a prep school. Let us get on.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a different point of order, and I am sure that it is one which you will take seriously, as will all members of Opposition parties from Scotland, especially as we have just had to listen to comments about seating arrangements at a dinner table somewhere and about who behaved or did not behave.
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the sense of anger and frustration during the hour allocated to a very serious issue affecting the national health service in Scotland.
We have no opportunity other than such statements to question the Secretary of State on those matters. We have no Select Committee on Scottish affairs, to which such a matter would rightly have been referred. Scottish legislation—for example, the Education (Schools) Bill and the council tax legislation—is being shoehorned into United Kingdom Bills, and Scottish Members are not being allowed the facility to represent effectively the views of their constituents in a Parliament in which Scottish business is increasingly being demoted.
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Lady is criticising some action of the Government. What is the point of order for me in this? I am aware of the strong feeling on the subject—who could be unaware of it?—and that is exactly why I allowed every Member who wished to ask a question to do so, even those who were not present for the statement.
Mrs. Ewing: The point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is your responsibility to protect the interests and rights of Back Benchers. Scottish Members are being attacked by people such as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who did not even listen to the statement but who says that we are constantly whingeing, whining and carping. Yet we are denied the democratic right to express the views of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker: These are not matters of order to me. [AN HON. MEMBER: "She has a grievance."] She may have a grievance, but it is with the Government, not with me.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member who raises a point of order about the behaviour of other Members not to practise what he preaches? It may be acceptable to some Members of this House that we should have to put up with industrial language in the Tea Room and in the Members' Cloakroom—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said to me last week —but I agree that it is not appropriate for such Members to run to the press. I was prepared to ignore the insults of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) but he went to the press. Is it not a gross
166
discourtesy for an Opposition transport spokesman to make it so clear to me that he disapproves of women drivers?
Mr. Speaker rose—
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I think the trouble is that such matters were raised in the Chamber, when they should not have been. If they were not raised in the Chamber, they would not be reported to the press—or, if they were, nobody would take any notice of them.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the submissions on the South Ayrshire trust, may I help you by pointing out that, although all the Labour Members made submissions, as did every Labour party association in Ayrshire and every prospective Labour candidate, no SNP association or candidate did so? Does that not make the words of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) ring hollow? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Why don't the two hon. Members go and have a cup of tea?
Several hon. Members rose[
Mr. Speaker: And I must say that I do not want to hear anything more about what happened last Wednesday.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a ruling a few moments ago, you referred to the tradition of the House that private conversations between Members should not be the subject of tittle-tattle to the press. I seek your guidance on whether the conversations that you have in mind are exchanges less in the nature of conversations than of foul and abusive language. Surely language appropriate to a ship's galley is not appropriate in the precincts of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for language here in the Chamber, not anywhere else.
Mr. Simon Burns: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that you felt that it was important that courtesy and good manners should govern our behaviour. I accept that absolutely, but does it not seem a little ironic that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should speak here on behalf of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), since on Thursday evening, although totally unprovoked, he swore at four of my colleagues?
Mr. Speaker: We have had some bloodletting on this matter. Let us leave it there. I hope that we can deal with one another as men and women of honour —as, indeed, we are—return to the old traditions of the House which are admired all over the world, and keep up our standards here.

Orders of the Day

  Prison Security Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper.
  4.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
  The Bill forms an important part of our response to the serious disturbances in our prisons in April 1990. Last year we witnessed violence and disorder in Manchester prison on a scale unprecedented in modern times. The disturbance lasted 25 days and the prison was very nearly destroyed. Almost 200 officers and prisoners were injured, and one prisoner received injuries which may have contributed to his death. In that month we witnessed sickening and disgraceful scenes. Those must not be allowed to recur.
  The damage caused at Strangeways will cost about £60 million to repair. A series of other disturbances followed —in Glen Parva, Dartmoor, Cardiff, Bristol and Pucklechurch. The cost of the damage in the other prisons and the consequential cost of keeping prisoners in police cells will probably exceed £100 million this year.
  Even now, 1,300 cell spaces at Manchester prison have not been brought back into use—I note that the amendment on the subject has not been selected—and the male remand centre at Pucklechurch, which provided 130 places for young offenders, is beyond economic repair. That, coupled with an unexpected rise of about 3,000 in the prison population, is the principal reason why we still have large numbers of prisoners detained in police cells who should be in prison. Today that number stands at more than 1,700.
  We have taken a number of measures to address the problem in the short term. Those include, as I have told the House on other occasions, converting Hewell Grange young offenders institution into a prison for adult males, bringing forward the opening of the young offenders institution at Brinsford in the west midlands—that is now in hand—and keeping open the prison at Brockhill, which was due to be closed. In the slightly longer term, the prison building programme should provide an additional 2,700 places by the end of the financial year.
  I accept that it is unsatisfactory for prisoners to be held in police cells, but part of the problem with police cells has been the result of industrial action by the Prison Officers Association at a number of establishments. I am glad to be able to report to the House that that action has been suspended, and I am grateful for the positive line and the co-operation shown by the POA. The places lost as a result of that action are gradually being brought back into use —for example, places at Birmingham, Pentonville and Cardiff.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Home Secretary tell me why I and other hon. Members should believe him now, when he and his colleagues have been telling us for the past 18 months that the position in greater Manchester would improve, yet prisoners are still
  168
  being held in places such as Denton police station? That is unsatisfactory for prisoners, for police officers carrying out their normal duties, and for probation officers, solicitors and others who wish to visit prisoners. When will it come to an end?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's comments are correct and I agree with them. The conditions are unsatisfactory. The holding of prisoners in police cells has continued longer than anyone would want because there has been an unexpected and unprecedented rise of about 3,000 in the prison population. The latest forecast is that the increase is likely to abate, but that alone is not sufficient—it may not abate. I cannot tell the House what the prison population is likely to be in the immediate aftermath of Christmas. I have brought forward the opening of an institution and I have kept one prison open for longer than we intended. There will be 2,700 more places by Easter. I hope that that will largely deal with the problem. I mean that. It will depend crucially on what happens to the prison population.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not just as true that the Greater Manchester police authority is very concerned that it is inadequately compensated for the transfer of responsibilities in this way? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is strong feeling throughout Greater Manchester that the police authority is not being properly compensated?
  Mr. Baker: I will look into that matter. I had not heard that complaint, because the payments to police authorities for keeping prisoners in police cells are higher per prisoner than for those kept in ordinary prisons.
  Earlier this year, I received the report into the disturbances, to which I referred, prepared by Lord Justice Woolf and the recommendations for change which he and Judge Tumim made. I am grateful to them for their work. We have since published the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice", which contains comprehensive proposals for improvements to both the regimes and the conditions in which prisoners are held, and in security and control. The two are linked. There is never any excuse for behaviour such as we witnessed last year, not even if conditions are not as good as they should be.
  Making prisons more decent places to live in will tend to reduce tensions, and will help to prevent a climate in which mutinous behaviour could develop. Prisons that provide proper programmes and fair treatment for prisoners are, as the White Paper acknowledges, more likely to be stable and safe. Staff can work constructively with inmates when they do not have the fear of a breakdown of order.
  I shall remind the House of the seven major steps that we are taking as part of our programme of prison reform. First, we are on target to end slopping out by December 1994. Already some 65 per cent. of places now have access to sanitation. I know that the whole House thinks that slopping out is an unnecessary, degrading and humiliating experience that should be no part of our prisons. As the House will know, I have brought forward the ending of that practice from the end of the century—the Woolf recommendation was 1996—to December 1994.
  Secondly, we have secured an extra £66 million over the next three years for White Paper-related initiatives. There will be total resources for the prison service of about £1·4

  169
  billion next year. Thirdly, we have awarded a contract to Group 4 Remand Services to take on the management of the Wolds remand prison.
  Fourthly, this year we are recruiting 2,500 prison officers. Next year, we plan to recruit 1,600 additional officers. Fifthly, regime activity hours for prisoners rose by 8 per cent. in 1989–90 and by a further 7 per cent. in 1990–91. As the House knows, I believe that the regime should be positive. Prisoners should be kept busy when they are in prison.
  Sixthly, a total of 13 new prisons will be delivered between April 1991 and January 1994 at a cost of £900 million. Four are now open and three more will be open by next April. Seventhly, we are developing a code of standards for the prison service and reforming arrangements for dealing with complaints. We will appoint a complaints adjudicator next year.
  We are also improving security and control in our prisons to make it harder for a mutiny to begin or develop. We have increased the number of staff trained in advanced techniques of control and restraint for handling disruptive prisoners. By November 1991, the prison service had trained about 5,000 officers in such techniques—an increase of more than 800 over the past year. Those officers have been successfully deployed on several occasions this year.
  We plan to spend more than £16 million this year on improving physical security. That will include X-ray machines, perimeter fencing, secure staircases and strengthened ceilings to prevent access to roof spaces. We have just issued a new contingency planning manual and we will issue a new security manual very soon. Those will take account of many of the security proposals in the Woolf report.
  In addition to those measures, we have decided to create a new offence of taking part in a prison mutiny, with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. This short Bill fulfils that intention.
  There are, of course, other ways in which to deal with prisoners who engage in calculated disorder such as we saw last year. Those disturbances have resulted in criminal proceedings against a number of prisoners who engage in calculated disorder such as we saw last year. Those disturbances have resulted in criminal proceedings against a number of prisoners. The House may like to know where we stand on that.
  The trials resulting from the disturbances at Dartmoor, Cardiff, Bristol and Glen Parva have ended. Sixty-two prisoners were proceeded against for a range of public order offences and 37 either pleaded guilty or were convicted. The first trials arising from the disturbances at Manchester and Pucklechurch will begin next January. In all, 108 defendants will be involved. Some have been charged with murder.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary accept that one of the points that causes considerable concern in Manchester is the amount of police time that has been taken up in preparing the charges for those involved in the Strangeways incident? It has meant that those police officers have not been able to be on the beat or to carry out other police activities. They have had to concentrate on bringing the charges arising out of Strangeways. That is one reason why many people in
  170
  Greater Manchester feel that there is not sufficient money and that there are not sufficient police officers to carry out the duty of protecting the public in Greater Manchester. Will the Home Secretary look carefully at the cost that the police authority has had to bear in bringing forward the documentation for the charges? Will he ensure that Greater Manchester police are compensated in some way?
  Mr. Baker: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point because he follows these matters in a serious and concerned way. The preparation of the cases against the prisoners in Strangeways has taken a long time because it must be done with especially scrupulous fairness on such occasions. That is why it has taken so long to bring the cases to court. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I will look into those points.
  It is not enough to have the machinery to mount a prosecution under the existing range of offences. Those do not prevent serious disturbances breaking out in the first place. The Bill does not simply deal with those who engage in serious distrubances in our prisons; it will also deter them. The new offence, which may be committed only in a prison and only by two or more prisoners acting in concert, will bring home to prisoners the severe consequences of mutinous behaviour.
  At present, a prisoner may be vaguely aware of a range of public order or criminal damage offences—normally the latter—with which he may be charged if he chooses to lend his backing to a serious disturbance. However, the warning signals are not, in my view, clear enough.
  All prisoners are given an information pack on their reception into prison. It contains a number of leaflets dealing with visits, complaints, discipline and other matters. The Prison Reform Trust has recently helped us to improve that pack. In future, prisoners will also receive a notice describing the offence of prison mutiny and the penalties available to the courts if a prisoner is convicted of it. This will be drawn specifically to the attention of prisoners. Prisoners must be aware that rioting is not a cost-free option. If prisoners want to make a point about the conditions in which they are held, there are proper procedures for them to follow.
  Mr. Robert Mclennan: As the measure was not adumbrated in earlier considerations by the right hon. Gentleman on the future of the prisons, will he tell us whether he consulted the Prison Governors Association about the Bill, and if so, whether it considered the Bill to be necessary? My understanding is that the association is opposed to it.
  Mr. Baker: There are wide consultations on Bills whenever new offences are created. We and many people in the prison service believe that this extra weapon should be available.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: No.
  Mr. Baker: Some governors to whom I have spoken have said that they would welcome the measure because they are also concerned. I know that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the Bill is not necessary. I believe that it is necessary because, as I have said, in future prisoners will receive a notice describing the offence of prison mutiny and the penalties available to the courts if a prisoner is convicted of that offence. It will be drawn specifically to the attention of prisoners. Prisoners must be aware that rioting is not a cost-free option. It would be

  171
  helpful from the point of view of a deterrent for prisoners to appreciate the consequences if they engage in disturbance and riot.
  Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a point? He said that the cost of the damage at Strangeways alone was about £60 million. Has that money had to be found from the prison refurbishment programme or is it additional money? It seems to some Conservative Members in particular that when prisoners riot and cause damage such as occurred in Strangeways, they do not appreciate that it is not cost-free. It must mean that there will be a slowdown in improvements in the prison estate.
  Mr. Baker: Money will have to be found from existing resources for existing refurbishment programmes. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If, as a result of such disturbances, severe damage costs a great deal to repair, no indulgent Chief Secretary to the Treasury—that is almost a contradiction in terms —would ever say, "You may have some more money for that." The work must be done, and that usually means a postponement of refurbishment elsewhere and a postponement of the very improvements that many prisoners would welcome.
  Mr. Greenway: Just by way of an interesting anecdote, the current Chief Secretary was the Minister with responsibility for prisons at the time of the Strangeways riot.
  Mr. Baker: Because the present Chief Secretary understood the problems of the prisons, I was able to secure from him a favourable settlement for the prison service for next year.
  I shall now refer to the specific clauses of the Bill. The new offence of prison mutiny is contained in clause 1. That makes it an offence for two or more prisoners to take part in a prison mutiny. If convicted, such prisoners face a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment over and above the sentence that they are serving. The case must be tried in the Crown court and only—this is important—with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. A prison mutiny occurs when two or more prisoners engage in conduct intended to further a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in the prison. It also occurs when they collectively resist, impede or disobey any exercise of lawful authority in such a way as to make their conduct subversive of order. The test is intentionally quite strict.
  As the House will appreciate, the provision is targeted on the most serious disturbances. For lesser offences within a prison, there is available a range of disciplinary measures. The governor may at present award up to 28 days loss of remission for offences such as denying access to any part of the establishment to any officer, disobeying any lawful order, and detaining any person against his will. The new offence is aimed at behaviour that goes some way beyond that. The test in clause I will also catch those who instigate a mutiny or co-ordinate the action behind the scenes, but play no active part in it themselves—in effect, those who pull the strings.
  Clause 2 deals with the related security issue of assisting escapes. It does several things. First, it widens the scope of the offence in section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 of conveying anything into a prison with intent to facilitate an escape. The clause also increases the maximum penalty
  172
  for that offence from five to 10 years imprisonment. Secondly, there is also an offence under section 22(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 of harbouring an escaped prisoner. The maximum penalty will rise from two to 10 years. The purpose in increasing penalties in that way is to reinforce society's disapproval of such conduct and to correct an anomaly. The maximum penalty for the related offence under the Criminal Law Act 1967 of impeding the apprehension of a person known or believed to be guilty of an arrestable offence is 10 years imprisonment. We are taking this opportunity to align the penalties and to remove that anomaly. This is a short but important measure.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I fear that the Bill is exactly what we have come to expect from the present Home Office. It is concerned less with solving real problems than with catching headlines. It is intended to create the illusion of activity. By that attempt, it diverts attention from the Government's failure to remedy the crisis in our prisons.
  Certainly, the Home Secretary briefly described the crisis in our prisons, but he did not even attempt to relate the Bill to a solution of the problems which he outlined. That may be because he does not quite understand the history of the problem or the nature of the Bill, for during his introductory paragraphs he referred to Lord Justice Woolf's report as comprehensive. Whatever else he thinks of that report, he cannot believe it to be comprehensive, as it did not include the present proposal. I shall refer to that point in a moment, but I want to make absolutely clear our attitude to the Bill and to its contents.
  At the time of the debate on the Queen's Speech, we believed that the Bill would be no worse than irrelevant to the needs of the prison service. We said that we would not oppose it. Nor shall we, but, having now seen the text, I must make it clear that in one particular we regard its provisions as wholly unacceptable.
  The definition of the new offence, which appears in clause 1, was described by the Home Secretary as "intentionally quite strict". In fact, it is so wide and so amorphous that it may encompass activities which in no way justify the penalties which are stipulated in that clause. The offence of prison mutiny carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, yet clause 1 defines prison mutiny as occurring when
  "two or more prisoners…collectively resist, impede or disobey any exercise of lawful authority in the prison in such circumstances as to make their conduct subversive of order in the prison."
  We can hypothesise the behaviour that might come under that heading and might in consequence justify a prison sentence of 10 years. It is easy enough to imagine behaviour of the sort which would justify such a sentence. However, it is easy to imagine, too, conduct which, while being generally appropriate to the description in the Bill, would in no way justify so severe a sentence.
  Previous proposals for a new offence of prison mutiny have all required the prosecution to prove intention or common purpose to overthrow legitimate authority or to demonstrate that prisoners have used threatening or violent behaviour. In this Bill, all that is required for conviction is proof that a lawful instruction was disobeyed in a way which undermined prison discipline. That definition, if words have any meaning, must include

  173
  conduct such as ridicule and dumb insolence. A maximum sentence of 10 years for such conduct is out of all proportion to the nature of the offence.
  Between March and June of this year, there were, in English prisons, 58 protests of one sort or another. Twenty-three protests concerned the quality of prison food. A prisoner who, as part of such a protest, refused to leave the dining hall would, technically at least, be guilty of an offence that carried a maximum sentence of 10 years. That is wholly unreasonable.
  Clause 1(4) increases the risk of disproportionate punishment for a trival offence. It states:
  "Where there is a prison mutiny, a prisoner who has or is given a reasonable opportunity of submitting to lawful authority and fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as taking part in the mutiny."
  In short, if a group of prisoners refuse to leave the dining room in protest against the quality of their food, anyone who remains with them will be liable to a prison sentence of 10 years. Few people would believe that even the ringleaders in such a demonstration deserve a decade in prison. The idea that those who sit in mute support should also qualify for such punishment is patently ridiculous.
  No doubt the Minister of State will tell us that long sentences will never be imposed in such cases, but some of the conduct encompassed by the clause should not be a criminal offence at all. A prisoner who, for a time, refused to return to his cell has not committed an offence which should be stigmatised as criminal. In any case, the crisis of prison overcrowding is in part caused by thoughtless optimism about sentencing policy. We create maximum sentences in the belief that they will be used only when appropriate. Regrettably, that is not always the case.
  In Committee, we shall attempt to relate the maximum penalties of clause 1 more closely to the most serious offences stipulated in clause 1(2), (3) and (4) and to make it explicit that only appropriate offences are criminalised by the Bill. If the Government reject that necessary improvement, we shall vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  Of course, the Home Secretary has implied that the Bill is needed to deal with more serious offences —what I shall call genuine prison mutiny; mutiny of the sort that we saw at Strangeways prison in 1990. Perhaps that ludicrously broad definition, which encompasses sitting at a dining room table and threatening to burn down the prison, was simply a mistake. If so, no doubt the Home Secretary will soon tell us which civil servant is to blame. But, if he simply claims that the Bill is necessary to deter violent mutiny, that is patently absurd. Prisoners involved in violence, wilful damage, threatening behaviour, assault and real disorder can already be charged with a number of serious offences. If the severe penalties already available do not deter rioters, none of the penalties stipulated in this Bill will act as a deterrent. In short, this was so much window dressing.
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Richard made the point exactly in another place:
  "the new offence is needed only in the case of a mutineer who is non-violent and does not threaten to be violent. There are plenty of crimes for which he can already be charged if he is violent or if he threatens violence. Furthermore, he must not occasion criminal damage…and must act alone, otherwise he can be charged with his co-mutineers with an offence of conspiracy.
  174
  It is difficult to think of an example of a mutiny for which the offence is needed."—[Official Report of the House of Lords. 7 November 1991; Vol. 532, c. 230.]
  It is clearly not needed for the preservation of prison discipline. I do not ask the House to accept my judgment on the matter. That is clearly the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf. In his report, "Prison Disturbances", published in April 1990, he made 204 recommendations on the government of our prisons. A new offence of prison mutiny was not included among them. The Woolf report, commissioned by the Government to prescribe a remedy for the crisis in our prisons, never even mentioned the idea. It is bizarre to the point of perversity that the Government should have the Woolf report at their disposal, fail to implement many of its recommendations, but nevertheless introduce an idea which Lord Justice Woolf did not even think worthy of the Home Secretary's consideration.
  We certainly believe that the Government are right to introduce a prison Bill in this their last Session, but it should have been devoted to something worth while. The Home Secretary shied away from Lord Justice Woolf's key recommendation —the proposal that no prison establishment should hold more than its certified normal level of prisoners and that Parliament should be informed whenever that number was exceeded.
  Yet Lord Justice Woolf was explicit about the major cause of the crisis in our prisons, including the disturbances which erupt from time to time. His report quoted the director-general of the prison service as saying:
  "The removal of overcrowding is, in my view, an indispensable pre-condition of sustained and universal improvement in prison conditions."
  Lord Justice Woolf "unreservedly" endorsed that
  "assessment of the effect of overcrowding and of the importance of resolving the overcrowding problem in the future",
  yet today there are 47,443 prisoners in custody in England and Wales. Our prisons are so overcrowded that 1,667 remand prisoners are held in police cells.
  If the Home Secretary took urgent action to reduce the prison population, he would reduce not only crime, which overcrowded prisons breed, but also the likelihood of prison riots. New cells will not solve the problem of overcrowding. The only way in which that problem will be solved is by a reduction in the prison population, but the Home Secretary will not face the consequences of encompassing that.
  Mr. Baker: That is easier said than done. The hon. Gentleman says that we should reduce the prison population. Is he suggesting that I should exercise executive release or that, if he were Home Secretary, he would exercise executive release?
  Mr. Hattersley: I will give three examples, all of which the right hon. Gentleman has rejected in the past. First, there should be a sentencing council, which would bring some consistency to sentencing and prevent people from being sent to prison for unreasonable periods. Secondly, there should be a real assault upon the incompetence and inefficiencies of our courts, which would result in a reduction of the time men and women are held on remand and reduce pressure in that way. Thirdly, some categories of offence should be removed from custodial sentencing. In my view, it is wholly absurd, for instance, that maintenance defaulters should end up in prison, making

  175
  sure that, whatever else happens, maintenance is not paid. I could give many other examples, but those are three which the Home Secretary might work on straight away.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Two of my constituents were awarded by the courts compensation for damage that a burglar had done in their house. Instead of paying that compensation, the person concerned served an extra week in prison. Is it not an absolute absurdity that that person should spend an extra week in prison and my elderly pensioner couple should not get compensation for the damage that they suffered as a result of the burglary?
  Mr. Hattersley: It is not only an absurdity but an absurdity that victims of crime resent. One of the great arguments for sentencing within the community is the opportunity that it ought to give the offender to make restitution in some way for the damage or hurt that he or she has caused. Whenever I talk about these things anywhere in the country, I find that people who have been burgled or mugged, or have had items stolen from their vehicles would much prefer the young man or woman who committed the crime to do something to compensate or repay them instead of spending a brief time in prison, with all the disadvantages that that involves.
  It was the Strangeways riot that resulted in Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry. His report reveals that, at the time of the the disturbance, that prison had certified normal accommodation for 970 prisoners, but held 1,647 prisoners. That, the report concludes,
  "would make it difficult to provide a constructive regime which would have helped to alleviate the dehumanising effects of the insanitary and unsatisfactory physical conditions within the prison."
  Even at Glen Parva, a modern prison, which rioted shortly after Strangeways, the CNA was 612 and the actual prison population was 778.
  All the prisons which, having experienced riots, were examined by Lord Justice Woolf held more prisoners than the certified normal accommodation figure. Yet the Home Secretary does not legislate to deal with the cause of disturbances.
  Mr. John Greenway: I am not entirely out of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying on this, but I would remind him that we have seen disturbances recently at the prison at Full Sutton, near York, which is not even full; there are still empty cells.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am not saying that disturbances always have a single cause. I am saying that Lord Justice Woolf, who produced an authoritative report on prison riots and the improvement of prison conditions—admittedly, a report that does not recommend the one thing that the Home Secretary has chosen to do, but a report which the Home Secretary wrongly described as comprehensive—draws attention time after time to the simple fact that all prisons that rioted in 1990 and were the subject of the inquiry were so overcrowded that many of the proper duties that prisons should perform were not being and could not be performed.
  By dealing with the crisis in prisons by a Bill of this sort rather than dealing first and fundamentally with the overcrowding situation, the Home Secretary is attacking the symptoms, not the causes. It is the sort of legislation that comes from a cosmetics salesman. It attempts to paint over the blemishes rather than remove them.
  176
  The conclusion that this Bill is a pointless publicity exercise is reinforced by an examination of the way in which previous Home Secretaries—Conservative Home Secretaries, I might say—have dealt with the issue of prison mutiny. In 1985, the Prior committee on prison disciplinary systems recommended that such an offence should be created. However, a year later, the Public Order Act 1986, which applies as much inside prisons as outside, became law. It created a statutory offence of riot—12 or more people using or threatening violence for an unlawful purpose. That offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, the same period as appears in this mutiny Bill. It created other offences —violent disorder, affray and threatening behaviour.
  The White Paper, "The Prison Disciplinary System", published in the following year, 1986, concluded that, because of the new offence of riot, a prison mutiny Bill was no longer necessary. Indeed, it was explicit in its judgment that the Public Order Act had made a new offence of prison riot unnecessary. A previous Tory Home Secretary wrote in the White Paper:
  "Since the Prior committee's report was published, the Government's Public Order Bill has been put before Parliament…Given the restructuring of public order offences in the Public Order Bill, the Government's view is that there is no need for a further public offence of prison mutiny."
  The Home Secretary has not even tried to explain why the Government have changed their mind or why he has rejected the published judgment of his predecessor. The only possible explanation is that the new Bill is needed as a diversion, an event to divert attention from the real needs of the prison system, needs which the Government do not and will not face.
  Clause 2 amends the Prison Act 1952 so as to increase the penalty for sending anything into prison with the intent to facilitate an escape. That is presumably the product of what we now know about the Brixton prison escape. We still do not know the full story of Brixton; therefore, we do not know the truth. Since the Bill relates to that breakout, I take the opportunity to tell the Home Secretary once more that sooner or later he will have to be frank with the House and the country about what occurred at Brixton and about what he knew.
  It is now established beyond doubt that special branch officers arranged for a prison officer to discuss escape plans with the two suspects who are still at large. It is also certain that the Home Secretary knew of the special branch involvement by the time he made his statement on Judge Tumim's inquiry. Yet he chose to keep it secret and blamed officers of the prison service for what happened. I understand that another television programme, dealing directly with what the Home Secretary chose not to reveal although it was known to him, is to be broadcast on Thursday. I warn him that the subject will not go away until he is frank with the House and the country.
  Our confidence in the Home Secretary and in his ability to handle the crisis in our prisons might be slightly restored if, even at this late stage, he gave the House and the country the full facts about the Brixton breakout. I doubt if he will accept my advice. Instead, he will rely on Bills such as the one we are debating, at best irrelevant, at worst unreasonable —
  Mr. Mark Wolfson rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: This is my final sentence; then I shall sit down so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate. [Interruption.] I think the Whip wants to say something to me.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hattersley: No, the Whip does not want to say something to me. I repeat that the Home Secretary will rely on Bills like this, which are at best irrelevant and at worst unreasonable. The main casualty will be his already damaged reputation.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We have come to expect that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will pour scorn on every idea which does not emanate from himself. Her Majesty's Opposition are expected to oppose—that is their constitutional position —but they are not expected to oppose everything whenever, whatever and however it is put forward. I should have thought that good sense would dictate that someone who opposes every measure begins to lose credibility. The right hon. Member, who opposes everything so vehemently, has very little credibility left on this subject.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that a reduction in the prison population was the way to improve the position in prisons. I listened with great care to discover how his brilliant mind would explain how in a society so apparently lawless there was a brilliant way of reducing the prison population. All that the right hon. Gentleman could come up with were three proposals.
  The first was that fine defaulters should not be sent to prison; but very few are. What sanction does the right hon. Gentleman suggest for those who persistently flout the view of the court that somebody is able to pay but refuses to do so? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be a speedier process. We all want a speedier process and therefore fewer remand prisoners. The problem with recent miscarriages of justice has been that the police have not done a thorough enough job. To do a thorough job, the police need more time.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that in some miraculous way a sentencing council would relieve the pressure on prisons. If a court has sentenced somebody to prison for an excessive length of time, there is already a sentencing council—the Court of Appeal, which can reduce the sentence. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more and more bureaucratic institutions set up to do the work of existing institutions, he had better say so. I was totally unconvinced that he, any more than anyone else, has a solution to the amount of crime and the necessity to send people to prison.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Bill, which provides for tougher action against prisoners who wish to carry out their war against society after conviction and sentence from within—or worse, outside —the prison to which they have been sentenced. The public are thoroughly fed up with prisoners smashing up prisones, which then have to be repaired at vast expense to the taxpayer, and with attempted escapes which cause injury to dedicated prison officers. Still more are the public fed up with escapes which succeed, and they
  178
  will be appalled to hear from my right hon. Friend that the cost of damage to our prisons last year exceeded £100 million.
  The Bill is the latest in a long line of measures to protect society from criminals and to improve the penal system. A succession of Conservative Home Secretaries have ensured that we now have the largest prison building programme this century, with nine prisons built and 4,000 places provided, and 12 new prisons on the way. We appointed a superb chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, and set up the Woolf commitee on prison reform, which has produced an excellent report. As a result, we shall end overcrowding by 1995 and slopping out by 1994. We are funding prison security much more excessively than in the past. We have ended some of the petty things like routine censorship of letters, and we have increased family visits.
  More to the point, we have considerably improved, by increasing their numbers, the service provided by prison officers. There are 4,700 more prison officers, with 1,600 on the way, and 3,000 fewer prisoners, so the prison population has risen by 7 per cent. while the prison service has increased by 47 per cent. We have a better staff-inmate ratio than France or west Germany, and if we include prison auxiliaries and night patrols, we do not compare all that badly with the Scandinavian countries.
  If it becomes obvious that the first private prison at Wolds, which is to be run by Group 4, is a success, I hope that the burden on the prison system will be further lightened by the extension of private prison building and private prison management, certainly for remand prisoners as there can be no sensible objection to treating unconvicted prisoners better than convicted prisoners. I think that we can all applaud my right hon. Friend for the other improvements in prison security about which he has told us.
  In all these matters Government prison policy has been positive, constructive and beneficial. We have no need to take lectures from the Opposition, who presided over the slashing of prison building by 29 per cent. while the prison population rose by 14·5 per cent. The Liberal Democrats, starkly represented by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), seem to concentrate on reducing the use of prison rather than on anything else. Of course, there is still a considerable task ahead for Government in improving the penal system.
  It is not much use improving the number and quality of the prison buildings if the prison management does not also improve. There is clearly much room for improvement in a number of management areas, such as the co-ordination of intelligence within prisons and the co-ordination of response. It is no secret that the governor of Brixton prison knew on 4 February 1991 that a breakout from the prison was being actively contemplated by IRA terrorists in the prison, yet they were not split up or moved. It seems that they were not closely watched—and the inevitable happened.
  I warn the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—I hope that he will accept that I do so in the best possible spirit—not to be carried along by media representations of what happened at Brixton. One of my constituents is the prison officer allegedly involved in those activities, and he strongly insists that the portrayal of what happened in Brixton in last week's Thames Television programme is totally wrong. When the inquiry has been completed, we

  179
  shall all know what happened, but in the meantime I warn the right hon. Gentleman that all is not as portrayed on the media.
  To give the House another example of a fault in the management of the prison service, I remember taking part in a case several years ago involving a prison breakout. Some convicted men went over the wall and the judge, who was born in that very prison, called for an improvement in security at the prison. It was Brixton prison. I do not know how many men have since gone over the same wall, but there have been several even recently. Yet not very much seems to have been done to make that wall unclimbable. That is not the fault of the prison governor; it is the fault of the prison service, for which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessors have the unavoidable responsibility.
  There is something wrong with the management of the prison service when the Prison Officers Association has 70 disputes in 41 prisons. Indeed, there is so much dissatisfaction with that union from within the prison service that another union, the Prison Service Union, is being set up and I understand that it has so far received 1,000 pledges from prospective members.
  Mr. David Trimble: It is not recognised.
  Mr. Lawrence: Indeed, the question is when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will recognise it. I hope that the proposed union will receive more support not only from the Government but from the House, because not having a monopoly union in the prison service must be healthy, especially if the monopoly union brings about so many disputes.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: As the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking questions about the management of our prisons, what has he to say about the management of a prison service in which, 12 months after a learned judge advises the Home Secretary to move suspected and convicted terrorists from Brixton prison, they are still there?
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is not very different from the point that lf was making about what the governor of Brixton prison knew several months before those IRA terrorists broke out. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond by telling the House what she knows when she replies to the debate.
  There are other examples of management failures. Old Bailey barristers are being prevented from having conferences with their clients at Brixton prison by prison officers, the prison service, or both. If one wishes to interview a client, one has to give notice about a week in advance, and sometimes interviews are cancelled at the last minute on the diktat of whoever is running Brixton prison. That is outrageous, as judges at the Old Bailey have made clear, but judges have no power over the running of the Prison Service. That again is a management failure, and improvements must be made.
  I am therefore pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recognised the importance of such management failures and that he has appointed Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo to improve management in the prison service. We can only hope that that review will be followed by sensible action. It is worth noting that the Woolf report
  180
  also drew attention to those management problems, as has the director of the prison service, Mr. Joe Pilling. Management is at fault and we must clean it up. I know that my right hon. Friend takes this matter seriously.
  With regard to the Bill, after 30 years at the criminal Bar and 35 years in politics, I have been driven reluctantly to the conclusion that fear is a more effective motivator of human behaviour than anything else, especially when dealing with people of ill will. I have seen too many offenders laughing at the courts for their weaknesses, too many malcontents exploiting the absence or inadequacy of the law, and too many criminals making the cool assessment that the risk of detection is well worth taking. As a result, I share the preponderant view that shorter sentences are often worse than longer sentences. It would be better for law and order if criminals were deterred by the possibility of receiving a longer sentence.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I entirely support my hon. and learned Friend's view that people should be afraid of the law and of being caught, but does he agree that boredom has played an important role in prison riots? I hope that our reforms will make it possible for prisoners to do some useful form of work in prison. That trend is growing in America. It enables prisoners to pay off their debts to society by working hard and banking the money.
  Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend is a charming relative newcomer to this place and we are delighted that she is here, but if she had been here as long as I have—getting on for 18 years now—she would have heard me banging on about exactly that point. I am pleased to have her support. It is necessary to turn our prisons into workplaces in which the inmates do not receive parole but can work their way out of prison by dedicated activity, which should be properly paid so that they can compensate those whom they have wronged and pay something back into the system. I am pleased that the idea that we should turn our prisons into workplaces is slowly beginning to take hold. The Woolf report gave some articulation to it. Apart from anything else, if prisons were places where criminals had to work, fewer of them would want to go to prison.
  Harsher sentences are necessary to make fear a dominant element in deterrence. It might not be a wholly popular view among pundits, but I am sure that it will he wholly popular among the people that the Bill should provide the power to impose deterrent sentences. Of course, not every would-be escaper would be deterred by the fear of a harsher sentence, but even now some prisoners refuse to go along with escape or mutiny plans due to fear of the consequences. The Bill will ensure that many more prisoners will refuse to join or support others' plans to forgo the consequences of their offending. Only the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook could describe that as a pointless publicity exercise. I hope that the provisions will reach the statute book quickly.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) persisted in talking about the new harsher penalties that would be available under the Bill. I believe that he was misleading the House and the country by those assertions, because the burden of the case of those of us who think that the Bill is completely irrelevant to the problems of our

  181
  prisons which it purports to tackle is that the penalties already exist in the Public Order Act 1986, for which the Government can legitimately take credit.
  The Bill does nothing to increase the powers of the courts if order should break down inside a prison, although it touches in a new way on some of the matters relating to aiding and abetting an escape outside a prison. But that was not the burden of the case made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, any more than it was the Home Secretary's case when he spoke in commendation of the Bill. It was notable that, in his introductory speech, the Home Secretary devoted very little time to the content of the Bill and scarcely sought to justify it.
  Mr. Lawrence: It is a short Bill.
  Mr. Maclennan: That does not diminish the need to explain and justify the complete volte face by the Home Office.
  Mr. Lawrence: It is not a volte face.
  Mr. Maclennan: Yes, it is.
  In 1986, the Home Office, under a previous Home Secretary, published a White Paper in which it explicitly rejected the proposal to introduce a new crime of prison mutiny. I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is not so. It is there in black and white. It was recommended initially by the Prior committee that an offence such as we are considering tonight should be created. The Government rejected it for precisely the reasons that I mentioned. The instruments for punishing prison rioters were already available and the offence was unnecessary.
  Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I thought hard and long about why the Government had reversed their decision. What change of circumstances had come about which made them take an entirely different view? One recoils from the obvious answer, which is that the Home Secretary wants yet again to produce a cheap headline in the popular press such as "Crackdown on crime", by producing, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, a modest and short Bill. The Home Secretary is receiving a disproportionate amount of attention from the press for the action that he has taken. There might have been some other more rational explanation, but it was not furnished to the House by the Secretary of State. I will deal with what he said in a moment.
  The Secretary of State did not tell us that there had been a change in circumstances since the Government rejected the Prior report. The change is in the procedures proposed for adjudication on offences in prisons by boards of visitors. It may be argued that, in 1986, the Government rejected the idea of abandoning the adjudicatory role of the prison visitors board, which was part of the Prior recommendations, so, as they had gone some way to changing the internal discipline regime, they might reasonably look again at Prior. But we had none of that from the Secretary of State tonight.
  Instead, we had the bizarre suggestion that prison order was likely to be more easily maintained if, on entering a prison, prisoners were given a little package telling them the consequences of their actions if they stepped out of line. An Act of Parliament is not necessary to do that. I am
  182
  not averse to packs of information on what happens when someone goes into prison. It seems to be part of the Woolf proposal for compacts and for making prisoners fully aware of what is happening in prisons and what the plans are. The provision of such packs of information is concomitant with that proposal. However, if prisoners are at risk of sentence under the Public Order Act 1986, the pack of information can explain that just as easily as it can explain the contents of this miserable and irrelevant little Bill.
  Once again, the Home Secretary has recognised that there is a problem. He feels that he must do something about it. He must persuade the public that he is doing something quickly, never mind the effectiveness of what he is doing. When there were tragic cases of dangerous dogs assaulting young children, the Home Secretary had to produce a Bill overnight. It was then withdrawn and another Bill was introduced, just so that we could have a crackdown on dangerous dogs. So, when there are riots and problems in prisons, we have to have a speedy and instantaneous responses from the Home Secretary. which is presented as the solution to the problem. Candidly, that will not wash.
  The Bill is scarcely worth opposing. I wholly agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that it would be inappropriate to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but, like the right hon. Gentleman, I intend to look closely at what happens to it during its passage through the House. It will have damaging consequences which willl flow from it not being targeted tightly on violent offences, as the Home Secretary suggested that it was. Violent offences gave rise to the need in the Home Secretary's mind to introduce the Bill.
  The word "violent" does not appear in the Bill. If a prisoner disobeys an instruction to place his laundry in a certain basket, he will be at some risk of being found guilty of mutiny under the Bill.
  The Minister of State, Home Office(Mrs. Angela Rumbold)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maclennan: The Minister of State shakes her head. It may be that, if the matter went to the Director of Public Prosecutions, he would take the view that the matter was not sufficiently serious to prosecute, but that is not the point. The point is that the definition of the offence in clause 1(1)(b) is so wide that any stepping out of line could constitute prison mutiny. As Lord Richard said most eloquently and correctly in another place, the only new element of the offence is that it is non-violent and is almost certainly conducted without conspiracy or the involvement or others.
  In an intervention during the Home Secretary's speech, I asked whether he had consulted or heard from the Prison Governors Association about the Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will be kind enough to inform the House who was consulted before the Government introduced the Bill, and who approves of it. We had some anecdotal evidence from the Home Secretary that one or two prison governors whom he happened to run into in recent weeks said that the Bill might not be a bad thing.
  The Prison Governors Association has told me clearly that it opposes the Bill on the grounds that the measures that it contains are "too draconian"—I use its exact words. No one is more anxious that the penalties should be apt for the crime than those most immediately affected by prison

  183
  disorder. The prison governors have said that it is too draconian, and the Prison Officers Association has expressed the view that it is an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction to a deeply serious problem. However, I recognise that the Prison Officers Association does not carry much weight with the Government at present.
  Notwithstanding the scope of Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry, he did not recommend that the new crime of prison mutiny should be introduced. I have not at any point heard Judge Tumim suggest that such a crime is appropriate. I can only assume that, as the matter was extensively discussed earlier, they thought that the issue was dead and that there was no point in discussing it, because the arguments had been so effectively canvassed and dismissed that the Government would not contemplate introducing such an offence.
  The extensive and widely approved report from Lord Justice Woolf said nothing about introducing an offence of prison mutiny. The Government appear to be flying in the face of that report.
  If the Government have received no recommendations that an offence of prison mutiny is necessary or desirable from anyone involved in the management of prisons, from what other organisations have they had such recommendations? Have the Government considered the experience in Northern Ireland or Scotland? Both countries have suffered prison violence, disorder and breakouts. Indeed, in Scotland, the power of a governor to limit remission is about half the power of a governor in England.
  Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, there is no pressure to align the law in Scotland with the Government's proposal. The Secretary of State for Scotland has not introduced a measure of this type. I wonder why. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was consulted about his experiences. The situation in the three separate parts of the United Kingdom is not so radically different that it is appropriate to establish different crimes as part of the panoply of the law for dealing with offences in prisons.
  Mr. Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of reducing the age of consent in homosexual offences to 16? If so, Scotland has a different approach to such matters from that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Maclennan: That has nothing to do with the matter under debate. I do not propose to get involved in what is clearly a diversionary tack. That is a Conservative tactic: when faced with a difficult question, they invariably try to divert attention by mentioning another issue.
  In the Bill, the Home Secretary has sought to divert the public's attention from the powerful recommendations in the Woolf report. He has failed to give a timetable for the implementation of those proposals, to set out a schedule which would carry weight and to tackle the problems at base. Instead, he has produced a little Bill which has no friends and which the House will not find—
  Mr. Steve Norris: That is why no one is going to vote against it tonight.
  Mr. Maclennan: As I explained to the normally silent Parliamentary Private Secretary, it is not appropriate to vote against a Bill of this sort at this stage.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member seems to agree with it.
  Mr. Maclennan: I think that my comments will be taken by a fair commentator as fairly hostile to the Bill. I certainly hope that is the message that got through.
  Clause 1(2)(b) is the part of the Bill which runs the greatest risk of causing mischief. It is far too widely drafted. If the Home Secretary does not want the Bill to do serious damage to internal discipline in prisons, resulting in matters that should be dealt with by internal disciplinary procedures going to court and taking up the time of the criminal justice system—making it far more difficult for prison governors to run their prisons—he had better look again at that clause and amend it. He must tighten that clause and accept the argument that he claimed to be attempting to grasp, which is to target the offence on violent offenders.
  The Bill will win few friends. We shall wait to see what happens in Committee before deciding what our attitude to it should be.
  5.52 pm
  Sir John Farr: I give a general welcome to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary telescoped his remarks. I had hoped to intervene to ask him about the extent of the Bill, but he sat down very rapidly at the end of his speech.
  An important issue in terms of the application of the Bill is contained in clause 3(3), which says:
  "This Act extends to England and Wales only."
  Apart from the general belief of many constitutionalists that all Acts of Parliament should apply to the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, that is a real mistake. Some parts of the Bill are relevant to an attempted escape. A trainer containing a weapon was sent from Northern Ireland to assist an escape quite recently. The person receiving the parcel in prison could be prosecuted under the Bill, but the dispatcher could not be dealt with because the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
  This is a fairly modest and harmless little Bill. We must get to the cause of the mutinies that have occurred, especially the mutiny at Strangeways, which was probably the most recent. and the savage mutiny at Gartree in my constituency not so long ago. AS the Home Secretary said, the Bill touches on one of the chief causes of the mutiny at Strangeways—shocking overcrowding. There were 1,647 inmates in a prison designed for 970. We must have more prisons, more staff, and better conditions for both staff and prisoners. It must be Government policy to give the lifer some dignity.
  Hon. Members have already discussed the Bill briefly, but I must mention clause 1(2)(a) again. As has already been said, prisoners frequently
  "engage in conduct which is intended to further common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison".
  There is a sound reason for rewording that clause, because that is too frequent an occurrence in day-to-day life in prison.
  Clause 1(2) states that there is a mutiny
  "where two or more prisoners while on the premises of any prison"
  engage in certain conduct. Two is the obvious number, but in certain circumstances a case could be made for one prisoner or three prisoners.
  The Woolf report referred to overcrowding, the need for more staff and, above all, the need for meaningful, educational training and a constructive programme of jobs

  185
  for prisoners. That is absolutely essential. The security of any prison hinges on the attitude and conduct of prisoners. If they are held in overcrowded conditions, unfit for a dog to live in, and have no meaningful occupation—I do not mean soulless, non-productive work—they have no alternative but to fall into mischief and cause trouble.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to the need to give prisoners some work. I agree, but it must be meaningful work. The trouble is that that is not easily obtained. It is all very well for us to say that we must ensure that prisoners are properly employed, but when the unemployment figures increase every month in the east midlands, there is resentment and resistance to prison inmates engaging in meaningful work as such work would probably take away jobs outside the prison. We must get around that conflict.
  The work must be meaningful, and it must satisfy the prisoners. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton said that the work should ideally enable prisoners to earn a remission on part of their sentence, or it could earn money to pay compensation to victims.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton also referred to the need to maintain what he described as the quality of managers in prisons, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also spoken about that. I have in my constituency the prison at Gartree and the young offenders centre at Glen Parva. It has been noted at Gartree that the better the governor, the more quickly he goes. If, as I understand, that is Home Office policy, an explanation is needed. I speak from experience, having met many Gartree governors. Some have been brilliant, others not so brilliant, but the more successful they are, the more quickly they seem to go, often within a year.
  The Home Office may think it necessary on security grounds to make regular changes, perhaps believing that it would be undesirable for the routines of governors to be known to the general public. Even so, the present policy seems to prevent our getting the best from some of the good male and female governors we have. Need they be rotated so rapidly?
  In 1987 there was an escape from Gartree. Clause 2 recommends that the maximum penalty for assisting a prisoner to escape should be increased from five to 10 years' imprisonment. I share the doubt that has been expressed about that change. Some of those involved in the helicopter escape from Gartree would not have been deterred by life imprisonment. Adding another five years to any possible sentence seems pointless, especially as some of those involved may already be serving that length of time. The proposal seems no more than a window dressing exercise.
  We learned some lessons from the escape at Gartree. At the time, there was much unease in my constituency because, although Gartree is reasonably isolated, it is only two or three miles from the centre of Market Harborough, with its population of more than 15,000 people. There was terror in the neighbourhood for a long time afterwards. That made me realise how much we depend on the prison officers and the fantastic security systems that have been built up. We depend on them and, by and large, they do their jobs brilliantly.
  Even so, it seems that some of the lessons which should have been learnt from that escape have not been applied,
  186
  at least not so fully as they should have been. A confidential report that I have —it is not public and I have no intention of revealing its contents—referred to an Exercise Rogue Elephant which should have been put into practice regularly by police and prison officers. It should have been carried out prior to the escape, to put into practice action needed in such an event.
  Perhaps I can be told, either today or in correspondence, whether Exercise Rogue Elephant is still carried out in midlands prisons. Are practice escapes still carried out? The report, by the deputy director-general of the prison service following the escape on 10 December 1987, revealed in connection with lessons that should have been learnt from the escape that effective co-operation between the police and the prison service appeared to be slow to get into action.
  Although the escape was, in part, aborted—because of fog and the fact that the escapers had to land their helicopter at a spot where they had not intended to land, after which they terrorised a number of local people—they still got clear away. One would have hoped that by now the procedure would have been polished and tightened up to prevent such a breakout recurring or to ensure that a more effective response would be forthcoming in the event of a breakout from such a top security prison.
  Gartree is a category A prison. In 1988, after the escape, a review was instigated into category A prisons by the Home Office, with emphasis on what was called the dispersal system. I have a Home Office document of that date detailing the management of category A inmates, with a statement of the Department's intentions. How is that programme proceeding? A letter on the subject from the Home Office at the time said that it was envisaged that a number of changes would be made from category A to category B, including at Gartree, which should go from category A to category B by 1992. Is that changeover still on schedule?
  Some of the points that I am raising may sound tedious to hon. Members, but they are important issues for my constituents. For example, what is being done about what are known as SSUs—special secure units—of which at that time there were Leicester, Parkhurst and Full Sutton? Are those three SSUs still operating? A report on the subject dated April 1989 said:
  "The future of the SSUs at Leicester and Parkhurst will be reviewed when the new accommodation is available."
  Those issues are so tied up with prison security that I would have been at fault had I not raised them in the debate.
  However heinous the crime, a prisoner is entitled to dignity and an aim and purpose in life. Conservative Members expect the Home Secretary continually to struggle to try to improve the lot of prison officers and prisoners. I have often been to Gartree prison and seen life prisoners who have committed the most fearful crimes, but they can all see the light at the end of the tunnel. That window of hope makes them better prisoners, more amenable to discipline although they have no prospect of leaving prison for many years.
  I have written to my right hon. Friend about a particular prisoner whose name I shall not mention. After 25 years in prison, he is now due for remission. In this case, as in many others, I am unhappy because the remission programme seems to have fallen by the wayside. In fact, I am still awaiting a reply from my right hon. Friend about

  187
  this prisoner. However guilty a prisoner may be, when he has done his term, he should come out as pure as the driven snow and be given an opportunity to start life again.
  With those few words, I welcome the Bill.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, he referred to the riots and disturbances that occurred recently in several prisons, and said that those scenes must not be allowed to recur. Those scenes led to the commission of several offences and to three people losing their lives. Obviously, one does not want that to recur. The Home Secretary said that the existing legislation was not enough and that consequently he was introducing a new offence of prison mutiny. Like other hon. Members, I am somewhat concerned about the terms of the new offence. Reference has already been made to its considerable width in that it will cover not only violent prison riots like those that occurred recently, but also minor protests, particularly in clause 1(2).
  I am equally worried about the drafting of clause 1(3), which says that, for the purposes of defining the offence of prison mutiny,
  "The intentions and…purpose of prisoners may be inferred from the form and circumstances of their conduct".
  The Home Secretary may have had that aspect in mind when he said that the test was intentionally strict, but I find the strictness alarming. However, the use of the word "may" will allow the courts to rescue people from falling within the net of that provision.
  The offence is extremely wide. I come from Northern Ireland and must therefore bear in mind the situation in Her Majesty's Crumlin road prison in Belfast. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to prisoners carrying on their war against society while in prison, and that has certainly been happening in the Crumlin road prison. It is a war between both major terrorist factions there, partly directed by one faction against the other, but also partly by one faction for the purpose of obtaining what they call segregation within the prison.
  I appreciate that this is neither the time not the place to go into detail about the extent of that war, but it has been going on for a considerable period. There have been serious disturbances involving the wrecking of part of the prison and attacks on prisoners, culminating only the other week in a bomb being smuggled into the prison and going off, resulting in the death of two prisoners.
  If the Strangeways riots, which resulted in three deaths, justify the Bill, perhaps the continuing warfare within the Crumlin Road prison, which has resulted in two deaths so far, merits consideration. It is unlikely that the explosion in the prison will be the last disturbance, because the atmosphere seems to be deteriorating, and further violence and injury are expected. Indeed, the new visiting arrangements that have been introduced in the prison may backfire, because the warfare may extend among relatives and visitors. Visiting arrangements are now carried out in larger open plan areas, and the authorities seem to be mixing the relatives of the two factions. If that is happening it is extremely curious.
  It is strange that the disturbances in England and Wales that led to the Bill have not so far led to the consideration of legislation to apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked whether it was
  188
  contemplated to introduce legislation for Scotland and the same could be asked with regard to Northern Ireland. I may be wrong, but I understand that there is at present no intention to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland. That may be partly because the Government think that other penalties under public order legislation are adequate, but it may also be because, unlike England and Wales, Northern Ireland already has an offence of prison mutiny.
  It is not contained in primary legislation but in the prison rules under the Prison (Northern Ireland) Act 1953.
  Rule 31, "Offences against discipline," states:
  "A prisoner shall be guilty of an offence against discipline, —if he (1) mutinies or incites another prisoner to mutiny".
  The prison rules contain no definition of mutiny, thus avoiding the criticisms that we have made of the drafting of clause I.
  Mr. Corbett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that all hon. Members try to understand the special conditions that lead to some of the circumstances that he has described in prisons in Northern Ireland. I hope that we can take that for granted. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the ability to deal with events that could be labelled as "mutiny" as a disciplinary matter inhibits prison governors in Northern Ireland? I do not wish to hurry the hon. Gentleman, as he may be about to explain that to the House, but would it help us to deal with the special conditions in Northern Ireland if the Bill were extended to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but, as he anticipated, I should be happier to deal with the point later.
  As I was saying, one of the offences against discipline is the offence of mutiny. Hon. Members may be interested to know the current penalties for mutiny in Northern Ireland. Under the prison rules, a governor may—it is at his discretion—refer a charge to the Secretary of State, in which case, the Secretary of State may impose one or more of the following penalties:

  "(a) caution:

  (b) loss of remission for a period not exceeding 180 days;

  (c) stoppage of earnings for a period not exceeding 56 days;

  (d) stoppage of any or all privileges…

  (e) exclusion from associated work for a period not exceeding 56 days;

  (f) cellular confinement for a period not exceeding 56 days."

  Those are the penalties for prison mutiny in Northern Ireland, where the continuing problems clearly fall within the definition of prison mutiny in the Bill. The Government consider that, in England and Wales, the maximum penalty for such an offence should be 10 years. They say that they have no intention of extending the legislation to Northern Ireland, where the present penalty is loss of remission for 180 days or confinement in a cell for 56 days. The penalties seem disproportionate.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described the legislation as a publicity exercise. If we consider it as such, what sort of message will it send to those prisoners in Northern Ireland who are presently creating a disturbance? The might consider that their activities are not regarded as important and are minor offences. Is that the sort of message that the Government intend to send?
  I cannot underline enough the fact that the present serious problems in Northern Ireland need to be adressed.

  189
  I know that there have been inquiries and that Lord Colville has been asked to assist the Government. One hopes that sense and control will be restored in Crumlin road prison, and that the prison authorities will exercise discipline in the interests of the prisoners' safety if no other reason. I wonder why the Government have engaged in this exercise when there are such grave prison problems in Northern Ireland.
  The Home Secretary said that one reason for the legislation was that it should act as a deterrent. In its response to the legislation the Prison Officers Association has queried that motive, and suggested that in its experience the majority of prisoners who have been, or are likely to be, involved in serious disturbances in prisons are long-term prisoners who may not be deterred by the legislation. One curious factor about the disturbances in Northern Ireland is that they are taking place not among long-term prisoners, but primarily among remand prisoners. That makes me believe that there might be some validity in the deterrence argument.
  If an additional offence were created, it might dissuade remand prisoners from continuing with their actions in the Crumlin road prison. Whatever weight one attaches to that argument—I am not sure how much to give it—I believe that detection, not deterrence is the important factor. We must detect those prisoners causing problems and there should be a proper system of management and control within the prison.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asked if it would help if the legislation were extended to cover Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether it is best to take the matter out of the prison discipline system and put it into the courts. If that is to be done, I hope that it will be done in a much better way that in the Bill, which is too widely drafted. I entirely endorse the comments of other hon. Members on the Bill's width.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) that, if we take such action, we should do so on a United Kingdom not a Northern Ireland, basis. If the legislation is introduced in England and Wales to create a new offence that must be handled through the courts, while in Northern Ireland a similar offence will be left to internal prison discipline, with comparatively minor penalties, we shall have the worst of all worlds in Northern Ireland. It seems most likely that we shall be left in that position. I hope that that will not happen, and that the legislation will be significantly amended in Committee.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I apologise to the House because, as soon as I sit down, I shall have to attend a committee and, as I am standing for office, I think that I should be there.
  In my view, and I think that of virtually everyone in the House, the public were rightly appalled last year when they saw the unprecedented violence committed on the roof of Strangeways and heard of the threats, often of a sinister nature, to other inmates. They were even more concerned when they learned that all that was likely to happen to the perpetrators was that they would lose some remission.
  I served as chairman of the board of visitors at Ranby prison before entering the House, so I know the restrictions on punishment that can be awarded in prison.
  190
  Therefore, I very much welcome the Bill, which would make it an offence to carry out some of the activities that occurred at Strangeways last year. I appreciate that the case may be sub judice, but the men who perpetrated the acts were clearly evil. They threatened and harmed other prison inmates who were serving their time as best they could. They also threatened the prison officers.
  Great credit is due to the prison officers at Strangeways and other establishments where there have been similar occurrences for their courage and dedication to duty. I do not always agree with what the Prison Officers Association says or does, but I pay tribute to it for the job it does, particularly in prisons such as Strangeways.
  We could not just pass over the events at Strangeways as if nothing had happened. The rioters clearly encouraged the copy-cat rioting at other prisons—one of the more sinister aspects of what happened at Strangeways. To some extent, prisons are governed by the consent of the inmates. If all the inmates of all the prisons throughout the country rose up as one at a particular time of the day, we could not contain the prison population. Let us consider what that would mean for the other inmates who would suffer the sharp end of the unpleasantness of some of their fellow prisoners. Let us imagine what would happen if some prisoners managed to escape and inflicted injuries on people outside, some of whom live in fear of the inmates coming out.
  The consequences of a prison mutiny could be horrific, particularly for citizens outside. If we were to allow them to continue to get away with only what is in effect a slap on the wrist, it would be as though we were saying that prisoners should serve no more time in prison than the judge initially awarded them at their trial.
  It follows that, as a result of the actions of those prisoners, taxpayers have to put their hands deep into their pockets. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the £60 million spent at Strangeways. If I were an Opposition Member, I would probably query such expenditure on one prison, but as I support my right hon. Friend and am here to ease the Bill's passage, I shall refrain from commenting adversely on that figure. However, my right hon. Friend will be happy to have my support as I tell the House that our current prison building programme is more than £1,000 million, a rise of 78 per cent. in real terms, over and above inflation, since the Conservative party took office. A prison building programme does not usually hit the headlines, but it is appropriate to underline the Government's commitment to decent. humane prisons. I hope that that commitment is shared by the Opposition, and I make no political point about it at this stage.
  Those who riot and destroy put back the prison building programme. That is the harsh reality of Strangeways. They harm not only their own prisons but the opportunity of more modern and humane conditions of incarceration for those who follow them into the prison system. They place enormous pressure on police cells.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. tabled an amendment which has not been selected but on which I have no doubt he will speak, stating that, until we do away with holding prisoners on remand in police cells, we should not introduce such a Bill. I understand that point—it is a fair constituency point —but it is a little self-defeating to say that, because the riots in Strangeways have placed enormous pressure on

  191
  police cells, we should not provide for future punishment of prison mutiny until those strains have been removed. The Bill seeks to avoid future strains on police cells by deterring future riots.
  It is entirely unsatisfactory that we should ever hold large numbers of prisoners in police cells, often at considerable distance from their homes and, even worse, at considerable distance from their remand courts. It is also unsatisfactory for the police, who have to look after and contain them and to transfer them, when—I am not being populist about this—they should be out and about detecting crime. Using police cells for remand purposes prevents them from doing that work. If necessary, if remand prisons are ever severely full or if for any reason they cannot be used, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to use temporary camps for the incarceration of remand prisoners. In any event, I hope that the current building programme will make that problem a thing of the past.
  The Bill has the advantage of providing for such crimes to be punished by a court of law. Apart from the inadequacies of punishments available to boards of visitors, the present system of adjudication by boards of visitors leaves something to be desired. Proceedings are supposed to be informal, and to some extent they are. An inmate can from time to time have a friend to speak for him, but he cannot have a lawyer. I am not necessarily arguing that he should, because if the inmate has a lawyer, so must the prison officer who is giving evidence and prosecuting in the case, and if there are lawyers on both sides, the proceedings will be turned into a court of law and some of their informality will be removed.
  However, I have always been deeply unhappy about adjudication proceedings in prisons. Unless one serves on a board of visitors, one has no experience of such proceedings, but the inmate is marched in—not quite at the double these days —to face three or more members of the board about three or four feet away in a small room. The inmate has an officer on either side of him, with their backs to the adjudication board, inches away from his face. I understand the need for security. No one wants the board of visitors, or the chairman, of whom I was one, being rushed at by an inmate who has been awarded a punishment with which he disagrees. But having two prison officers inches away from the prisoner's face, staring at him while he makes his case—such people are generally not trained advocates, although some are —is rather unfair.
  Some of us did our time in the Army and will remember being on a charge. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were never in such a position, but I have to confess that I have been. To be run in at the double and shouted at feet away from the person who is putting the charge, without the opportunity of any relaxation, smacks of injustice and intimidation.
  Before I came to the House, I chaired an adjudication board at Ranby prison. The inmate before us was charged with attempting to escape. He had acquired a long length of rope and a few grappling irons and it was clear that he intended to escape, but all that he had done was secrete the rope in another building, where he and the rope had been found. He had made no other attempt to escape, but the authorities expected us to find that chap guilty. We nearly always found inmates guilty, but I directed my fellow members of the board that merely acquiring kit for the purpose of an escape was riot an attempt to escape.
  192
  I do not tell that story in order to show what a good, sensible fellow I am; I tell it because, as soon as we found that man not guilty, there was outrage throughout the prison. I can tell the House this because it happened at least 10 years ago, and no one will be harmed by my doing so. The prison officers felt that the purpose of the adjudication was to nip the matter in the bud and to give the appropriate punishment. I hope that I do not misjudge the people with whom I was working, but there was outrage at the fact that we had let the chap off.
  I make that point because the way in which we have punished prisoners who have committed offences in prison over the years has left something to be desired. Making serious cases triable before the courts will remove them from the adjudication procedures which are often conducted within days of the event, when passions are running high and when the inmate is in some jeopardy.
  This is a reform that I warmly welcome, and I give it my full support.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was not surprised that Mr. Speaker did not select my amendment. I did not intend to seek to divide the House on it, but it served its purpose because the Home Secretary referred to the problems of Strangeways. I was pleased that he said that he would consider the problems and costs of Greater Manchester police in collecting all the evidence resulting from the incidents at Stangeways and the problems that will exist from January onwards while all those involved in the Strangeways incidents are brought before the court. That will involve many costs for Greater Manchester, and I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has agreed to consider that problem.
  I was also glad to hear the Home Secretary acknowledge that the police cell situation in Greater Manchester is appalling. What do the Government intend to do about that? Ministers have admitted to that situation for 12 months. I received promises that next week, or the week after, the situation would improve, but it did not. The Government say that the Greater Manchester police will cope, and they will, but it is unfair to expect them to do so, rather than producing a solution.
  There is a major question mark over the competence of the Home Secretary and the Home Office team. It seems that their only response to a crisis is to produce a Bill, have it enacted, and then assume that the problem has gone away. We saw that happen in respect of dangerous dogs, when the Government had to backtrack on several sections of that legislation—which has not, anyway, provided a solution. We are now confronted by the problem of joyriding and car stealing, and a measure is to be rushed through the House next Monday, but I doubt whether it will solve those problems.
  The Prison Security Bill is supposed to deal with the crisis in our prisons—and in Greater Manchester in particular, because Strangeways is not available. The Government want newspaper headlines giving the impression that they are taking action, but in truth they are not achieving anything.
  The Government should review the size of the prison population and devise a strategy to reduce it. We must tackle the avalanche of crime in this country by convincing people that if they commit a crime, they will be caught and

  193
  punished. Sadly, too many crimes go undetected—or if they are detected, those who committed them escape punishment. There must be certainty that law breakers will be detected and properly punished.
  The Government must consider also the climate created by modern attitudes. I regret the move more and more into a society of greed, in which the Government encourage the public to measure their worth in material terms. Sunday trading is another indication that the individual is measured by possessions rather than inner quality. I believe that it was William Morris who spoke of a person having an honest face. Society should emphasise that the individual should be honest unto himself and to others. Until that change of attitude occurs, those who fail at almost everything will turn to crime to gain material satisfaction.
  Consideration must also be given to effective prison treatment. It is clear that people reoffend because their earlier imprisonment was a total waste of time. I repeat the point made in my earlier intervention, that we are still sending people to prison who do not need to go there. In one appalling case, one of my constituents was awarded restitution by the court, but some months later found that the individual had made no attempt to pay. The person was imprisoned, and that imprisonment crossed out any duty to pay restitution, but it was useless sending the individual to prison for just over a week—it would have been far better if the court had insisted that he paid restitution.
  I ask almost facetiously of the Government whether the Bill will apply to those held in police cells. I suspect that it will. At present, more people are held in police cells in Greater Manchester and neighbouring forces, than in some of our prisons. Those on remand are being held in appalling conditions, and are not being cared for by people trained in that work. Although no senior officer in Greater Manchester will confirm that that situation affects the force's operational efficiency, the evidence points that way. Younger police officers no doubt like the overtime that goes with custodial work, but the extra hours must affect their efficiency when on conventional duties.
  I am told that no one is allowed to go free in Greater Manchester because of the non-availability of a police cell, but people arrested in some parts of Greater Manchester cannot be taken to the nearest cells, because they are either full or occupied by people on remand who ought to be in prison. The newly arrested individual therefore has to be taken to a different police station, which also has an effect on police efficiency.
  Custody officers at police stations are given some training in how to deal with a person who, having just been arrested and placed in a police cell, might attempt to commit suicide. The individual concerned may have been remanded two or three times, and at that stage might represent a potential suicide. I understand that such prisoners can be given paper suits to wear, but great skill—of the kind that prison warders are trained to develop—is required on the part of the police officer in dealing with someone who is suicidal. I understand that there have been 52 attempted suicides in police cells since the Strangeways incident. That is not a situation with which police officers should have to deal.
  194
  Escapes—there was one important escape in Greater Manchester—and even the risk of escapes place a great strain on police officers in their attempts to contain a large number of prisoners in police cells.
  Greater Manchester solicitors are often required to travel some distance to receive instructions from prisoners on remand, which I understand adds to legal aid costs. The same problem faces probation officers. If someone is remanded in prison, at least he is likely to be found there —but those kept in police cells are often moved from place to place.
  I have said before that many of the cells in which people are currently held in Greater Manchester were taken out of use 10 years ago. Those at Denton police station are an example of that. They were closed because they were thought unsuitable for holding people even overnight. I admit that some work has been done on those cells, but they are still very unsatisfactory.
  I understand that the Minister of State is to visit Greater Manchester one day next week, when I am sure that she will see for herself the problems that I have described. However, I want the Minister not just to look, but to bring some solutions to Greater Manchester's problems, which are certainly growing worse.
  At one point, only 269 prisoners were being held in Greater Manchester police cells, but that number is increasing. Ministers' promises have evaporated in recent months. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and agree that an appalling situation exists, but nothing happens. As an act of despair, Greater Manchester police authority even considered suing the Home Office. I hope that it does not come to that, but I emphasise that a solution must be found. If necessary, I shall raise the subject again on Report or Third Reading, but I hope that by then the Government will have achieved a solution whereby police cells in Greater Manchester are not used for prisoners who should not be there.
  Like so many other Home Office measures, the Bill is irrelevant to the problem. If we had properly run prisons with a reasonable number of prisoners, there would be little chance of mutiny. Overcrowding and all the other problems that Woolf referred to are causing the difficulties. The Government should address Woolf s recommendations rather than creating the irrelevant offence of prison mutiny, which will not solve the problem but is merely an attempt at window dressing.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I have much sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on the use of police cells for prisoners. It should be of the gravest concern to the House that about 1,700 prisoners are still in police cells. Perhaps this is not the occasion to debate that in detail, except to say that I was heartened to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that the Prison Officers Association had decided to call off its industrial action, which to me and many others seemed to lie at the heart of many of the problems. That action is not the only reason why police cells have been used, but it has been a substantial reason. At any one time, about half of the 78 police cells in north Yorkshire are full of prisoners. That is a shocking way of trying to police north Yorkshire, where crime is increasing. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has done the House a service by raising that matter.

  195
  It used to be thought that the great train robbery was the crime of the century. It was certainly very daring, but if I remember correctly the train robbers stole about £2 million and one railway employee was seriously injured. Set against that serious and heinous crime, events at Strangeways last year better qualify for the title of crime of the century. A total of 147 members of prison staff were injured, some seriously, 47 prisoners were hurt and one died. The extent to which the riot contributed to that is conjecture, but as we heard again this afternoon, it will cost at least £60 million to put right the damage.
  I was one of four members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who had the unforgettable experience of visiting Strangeways a few days after the riot. I choose the words "unforgettable experience" very carefully. It was harrowing, daunting and deeply shocking. The sickening squalor that we saw and the stench of fire damage, urine, excrement and rotting food remained in my nostrils for days afterwards.
  We saw the wanton destruction of so much of the prison building, including the newly installed toilets and washing facilities. Stairways, gangways, doors and windows were ripped out, areas of the roof were demolished and slates and scaffolding poles were strewn over a large area. Many slates were well outside the perimeter walls of the prison. The prison chapel, where the initial disturbance began, did not escape the sordid damage. We saw horrible grafitti and, perhaps the most horrible sight of all, bibles and hymn books rotting on the floor, having been damaged when the fire was put out.
  Seeing all that damage left me in no doubt about two things —first, that the men who had had to face the violent scenes that we witnessed on television deserve the highest praise, and secondly, that such a riot should never happen again. It is the duty of the House and of the Government to ensure that all that needs to be done to prevent similar riots is given priority. Holding those responsible for what happened to account must be part of that process. That is why it is right to consider what can be done to improve discipline in prisons.
  It was clear to us that individual prison officers had shown much courage and had performed their duties bravely and skilfully. They deserve the gratitude and admiration of the House and of the country. Sadly, we have not been able to debate this issue in detail previously, so perhaps there has not been an opportunity to pay that tribute.
  Some Conservative Members have criticised some of the POA's policies, but when considering disturbances at Strangeway and at other prisons we should acknowledge the fortitude of prison staff in the face of extreme and savage violence. I recall talking to one prison officer—this graphically shows the difficulty that they faced—who, despite wearing a helmet and mask, virtually had the front of his face sliced open by a slate that was thrown from the roof. Although I did not see that, having seen the damage I could easily imagine that that had happened.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Hon. Members have praised prison officers, who were rightly paid a glowing tribute in the Woolf report and many of whom suffered psychological and physical trauma. I met officers who were terrified of returning to overcrowded prisons and who could not face that trauma again. It is unjust that some Conservative Members—perhaps not the hon.
  196
  Gentleman, but many of his colleagues, including some Ministers—have unfairly criticised prison officers, who suffered enormously after Strangeways.
  Mr. Greenway: Again, I am not without sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, but there is a difference between comparing the lot of the average prison officer —it is not an attractive job or one that I would like to do, and I make no secret of that—and criticising some of the policies pursued by the Prisoners Officers Association, especially as there are about 1,700 prisoners in police cells, many of them because of the POA's industrial action.
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish my argument?
  The prison officers on duty in Strangeways and in one or two other prisons have every right not only to the plaudits of the House, but to the opportunity to recover from their harrowing experiencce. I have no evidence that anything other than that is happening.
  Many of the prison officers who have taken industrial action in other prisons were not on duty at Strangeways. As I said to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), there have been problems in the brand new prison at Full Sutton near York, although the accommodation is not full. However, perhaps we can move on.
  There is a world of difference between paying a rightful tribute to the bravery of individual officers and, when we do not agree with the POA's policy, making a justifiable criticism of it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this afternoon gave us the most important and encouraging news about the prison service for some time. He said—and I had not known this—that the POA is to call off its industrial action, and I sincerely hope that that is the case.
  I do not believe that it is in the interests of anyone in the prison service to prolong the disputes. We know that they are about manning levels but, as I shall state later, I believe that the Government are making a genuine attempt to improve our prison regime, a greater attempt than any Government have made for a long time. I hope that the POA will recognise that.
  Leaving Strangeways on that day in May last year, my thoughts were filled with direct questions about what needs to be done to ensure that such a disturbaance is prevented as far as is humanly possible. I make no secret of the fact that I do not believe that the Bill alone is the answer. No one in the Government is suggesting that we can solve all the problems and disturbances merely by creating the crime of prison mutiny. Listening to some of the speeches from the Opposition, one would think that that is precisely what they are accusing the Government of doing. Nothing could be further from the truth—the Bill is merely part of a package of necessary measures on which the Government have embarked.
  However, before we even embark on that, we must consider the lessons to be learned from Strangeways. That is why the House should perhaps have had the opportunity to spend more time in the past few months debating the brilliant Woolf report. It was suggested earlier that we might need to make rather lengthy speeches this evening. One has only to pick up the Woolf report to know that it contains plenty of material to occupy the House for a long time.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Read it out.
  Mr. Greenway: I shall not rise to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to read it out, but I shall refer to one or two relevant points.
  The Woolf report cites three requirements for a stable prison—security, control and justice. Security is necessary to prevent escapes; control to prevent prisoners being disruptive; and justice to treat prisoners with humanity and fairness and to prepare them for their return to society in a way that will make reoffending less likely. That must be the fundamental aim of our prison service. The crime rate is rising and the number of prisoners—particularly young people—who come out, reoffend and go back to prison is also increasing. In view of that, we must do more with such people when they are in custody, and the improvement of the regime is crucial in that respect.
  To answer the three aims of security, control and justice in turn demands substantial improvements in three key areas. We must improve the prison estate, the management and the prison regime. Strangeways could not have been better designed to facilitate a riot if that had been the intention. Again, my experience of going to the prison brought that home to me. The Government are doing much—more than any other Government in modern times —to improve our prison-building programme, but I shall deal with that issue in a moment.
  Management failings at a number of levels is the crucial issue to be considered tonight. Management failings were identified by Woolf as being at the heart of the problem at Strangeways. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), I shall refer to one or two of the report's conclusions. Paragraph 432 of section 3 states:
  "The reason why the disturbance developed so rapidly was in particular because of the lack of preparedness of the prison staff and management and the inept handling of the early stages of the disturbance. This was largely attributable to totally inadequate training of the prison management and staff as to how to handle an incident of this sort."
  Woolf went on to say:
  "Headquarters and the North Regional Office bear a substantial responsibility for the extent to which the management and staff of the prison were unprepared for the disturbance. Security and contingency planning was given too low a priority by both bodies…The prison should also give higher priority to security and control. The way security records were kept was unsatisfactory."
  The report contains a third major criticism of management. It refers to the fact
  "that relatively junior governors on duty, who had not received any training in the handling of a major disturbance, contributed to the riot spreading to the whole prison."
  It must be clear from that that the Government are right to try to give more priority to improving the management of the prison service.
  The third issue which must be considered in improving the prison regime involves giving prisoners something worth while to do. It is undoubtedly true that there are too many prisoners who do not have enough to do and who suffer acute boredom. There is too much movement of prisoners because of the numbers on remand, and there are too many remand prisoners in prisons in which there are prisoners whom we want to reform.
  It is a problem but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, I have a high regard for a training prison in my area—Thorp Arch—which is to continue in its current role. I am grateful for that. I visited the prison last summer and saw the work being done with some long-stay prisoners—some of whom are serving sentences of 12 or 15
  198
  years—who are within two years of their release. The work is to help to prepare them for the world outside, and that is the key to what must be done in many of our prisons.
  Leaving that prison, I was aware of the contrast between the squalor that I had seen in Strangeways and the constructive work that I had seen at Thorp Arch. Without a shadow of doubt, one could guarantee that there would not be the sort of disturbance at Thorp Arch that happened at Strangeways.
  Mr. Sheerman: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman mention the good work at Thorp Arch. Sadly, it is not typical. He mentioned the preparation for release and for training and employment on release. We should like much more effort put into that, because the statistics show, as he is aware, that the chance of a prisoner reoffending if he has a job to go to and some back-up in the community is less.
  One of the interesting facts about employment prospects for prisoners that came out of the Select Committee on Employment was how disastrous has been the Government's withdrawal over the past few years of the Department of Employment counselling for prisoners both before and after release. It is a sad comment on the Government that that counselling service has been abolished.
  Mr. Greenway: That is another matter, which the hon. Gentleman may wish to take up later.
  My argument is simple. A regime that is not disrupted by too many remand prisoners being moved backwards and forwards—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might do me the courtesy of listening to my reply to his question. There can be too many movements of prisoners and too many staff engaged in supervising them. That is why I strongly supported the measure in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to bring in the private sector to deal with escort duties. Prison officers could then get on with the job for which they are trained and at which they are best—trying to reform some of the prisoners.
  Another problem is that most prisoners are in prison for a relatively short time—three months or six months, and then they are out again. The work at Thorp Arch is done with those who are serving long sentences, but we can learn lessons from it, in that where there is worthwhile activity in prisons I do not believe that riot and disturbance are likely.
  Disciplinary arrangements have a crucial part to play in achieving the aim of an improved prison regime. That is what the Bill is about. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook tried to say that all that the Government were doing to prevent another Strangeways was to introduce the Bill. That does a grave disservice to the tremendous work of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, to whom I pay tribute. Had the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook listened to the Home Secretary's speech and taken the notes that I did, he would have discovered that the Bill was only one of nine measures that the Government are introducing.
  Slopping out will end by 1994. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been under the cosh in the past few days—at any rate, he has had one or two difficulties. However, I believe that his tenure as Home Secretary will be recalled—[Interruption.]—for the fact that he had the courage and secured the resources to end the degrading

  199
  process of slopping out, which has besmirched the prison service for a long time. The hon. Member for Leicester, East is barracking.
  Mr. Vaz: I am not.
  Mr. Greenway: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Minister then responsible for prisons—now my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee after the Strangeways riot —
  Mr. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object to being accused of barracking. I merely let out a very small laugh when the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that the Home Secretary would be remembered for great things. I was not barracking.
  Mr. Corbett rose—
  Mr. Greenway: May I continue? I have been speaking for rather a long time. I remind the hon. Member for Leicester, East that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was the Minister responsible for prisons, in May last year he told the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Government were still on course to end slopping out by the end of 1998. A year later, as a response to the Woolf report, we are talking about advancing that target by four years. That is a considerable achievement.
  Secondly, we are putting record resources into the prison service. Some £1·4 billion is the annual cost of running the prison regime and there is £66 million to be spent next year on matters related to improvements suggested in the White Paper. Those in turn were a response to the Woolf report.
  The exciting project at Wolds remand prison is a factor to which we can look forward. It will bring about an overall long-term improvement in the prison regime. There will be extra staff, too. I note that we intend to recruit 4,100 more prison officers over the next two years—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is nodding. That is a substantial commitment.
  There will also be 13 new prisons. The decision to build them was taken a long time ago, and they will open over the next two and a half years. For the first time, a code of standards is being introduced in our prisons, and that is long overdue. There is also the welcome commitment on the complaints adjudicator.
  More staff will have been trained in control and restraint procedures. Security in our prisons will be improved. I was especially interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that the strengthening of ceilings to prevent access to the roof space was being given priority.
  The final measure is the Bill. As I said, it is part of the overall package. There has been an attempt to suggest that it will make no real difference, and to rubbish its provisions. It is justifiable to ask the question: will it work? Opinions are divided, but the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made an interesting and helpful speech about the experience in Northern Ireland, From which the rest of the United Kingdom could learn a great deal. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the truth when he said that the measure might discourage some shorter-stay prisoners from getting involved in riots and disturbances created by some of the longer-stay prisoners.
  200
  There is support for that idea in the first paragraph of Lord Justice Woolf s "Conclusions Specific to the Manchester Disturbance":
  "The disturbance which took place in the Chapel had been planned. That is clear from the evidence given formally and informally to the Inquiry".
  Lord Justice Woolf says that the disturbance was "known beforehand" as likely
  "to take place, and…there were some inmates at the Chapel with weapons and masks. However, the number of inmates who attended the service with the intention of creating a disturbance was probably no more than 12 and possibly a smaller number than that. The remainder of those involved took advantage of the situation which developed to give vent to their own frustration".
  I have no qualms in saying that the penal affairs brief from the Prison Officers Association, which I suspect has been sent to every hon. Member, is generally critical of the Bill. However, even that critical brief says:
  "It is conceded, however, that prisoners on shorter sentences may be influenced by such provisions from joining a disturbance which is already underway".
  The Bill is not, in itself, the answer that will prevent a disturbance such as that at Strangeways from recurring. It is just one measure in a large package, but it is worth while.
  Clause 2 rightly aims to strengthen the law on people outside assisting escapes. With the increase in the number of escapes from prison, that is an important point.
  The Bill is a valuable addition to our law on prison discipline. I am pleased to note that, despite what it has said, the Labour party does not intend to divide the House.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to make some brief comments on the Bill. As the Minister is aware, there are two prisons in my constituency, and I was pleased to welcome her on a visit to both of them recently. I have known New Hall women's prison for some time, and I used to visit it many years ago when it was a detention centre. It was the place where the Government undertook one of their most spectacular failures in penal experiments—the short, sharp shock regime, which involved marching youths up and down. It was a miserable failure, and further failures are likely with policies such as those in the Bill. They are half-hearted measures which do not address the issues that cause concern in the prison system.
  I have been proud to see the change at New Hall. I mentioned to the Minister when she visited that the management of the prison service deserve credit for the smooth way in which they have engineered the change from an all-male establishment to an all-female establishment producing some progressive policies which have an impact, I hope, on the lives of the women who are unfortunate enough to spend time there. I commend the prison governor who initiated the change and the present governor for their work, as I commend the staff who have supported them.
  I have had considerable involvement with Wakefield prison since I was elected as Member of Parliament for Wakefield in 1987. I receive many letters from prisoners, and I visit the prison regularly. The work load, as hon. Members who have prisons in their constituencies are aware, is heavy. I hear about grievances on various issues from prisoners almost daily.
  What concerns me more than the many grievances of the inmates at Wakefield prison has been the almost

  201
  constant grievances about which I have been told by members of staff. As the Minister is aware, since the last general election there has been a state of industrial dispute at Love lane because of "fresh start". The Prison Officers Association and individual staff at the prison have constantly expressed their concern about the way in which the management of the prison service have failed to honour their side of the agreement reached some years ago on the change under "fresh start".
  Hon. Members will be aware of the national figures. Since 1987, the prison officers' hours have been cut from 56 to 41 per week, which is the equivalent of 6,300 fewer staff. There is a proposal for a further two-hour reduction to 39 hours next April, which will be the equivalent of about 1,000 fewer staff. That has a strong impact on prisons such as Wakefield. There has been a constant dialogue between the POA and the prison governor about the difficulties there.
  Apart from meeting the POA several times, I have also met the prison governor, and I know that he has sometimes been frustrated. He has made comments which I have previously reported to the House about his concerns about possible future problems at Wakefield prison because of the inability of the prison service to deliver the staffing levels required in that establishment.
  I am sorry to say that the Government are paranoid about the POA. The people I meet at both local and national level are eminently reasonable. I put on record the fact that I believe that the POA as an organisation has changed recently. I can recall being in a licensed establishment in Wakefield some years ago when people coming off duty at Wakefield prison came in. I talked to one or two of them, and when I got home that night, I found a number of British National party leaflets in my pocket. At that time, the chairman of the Labour party in Wakefield gave clear evidence at a party meeting that the core of the British National party in Wakefield was in the prison. I used to be concerned about the POA because some of its policies were akin to those of organisations of the extreme right.
  However, the POA has recently transformed itself into a responsible and decent organisation. It is true that it stands up for the interests of its members but, from what I have seen in Wakefield, it also stands up for the prison service. It stands up for issues of concern to my constituents, such as the security of prisons and the staffing level in Wakefield prison.
  The Government's resolution of the dispute at Wakefield has caused me grave concern. I recently met representatives of the POA at Wakefield. It seems to me that the dispute has been ended on the basis of the POA being bullied into submission by being told that, if it did not end industrial action, the full powers of the state, to quote the governor, would be brought in to deal with the situation. That is not a healthy way in which to resolve conflicts that could be resolved amicably, possibly by arbitration. Those issues should be studied and talked about, but they are not addressed in the Bill.
  The central issue which must be addressed by the Government is that they are criminogenic. The nature of Government policy causes crime. The Government have set up a "look after number one" society. They encourage people to look after themselves and to ignore the plight of
  202
  others. They are anti-collective and pro-individual. If one encourages such motives in society, one gets a society such as the Conservatives have achieved in the past decade, with the worst crime figures in history, and with prisons crammed with people who have offended.
  I do not say that the people in Wakefield who are there for serious offences relate to that issue, but I believe that many people are forced into crime because of the way in which they have been treated as a result of Government policies. We must accept that the central theme of the Government since 1979 has been selfishness and personal greed. That actively encourages people at the bottom of the pile to commit crimes, and the Government must address that issue when working out why people end up in prison. The Government's policies have resulted in huge pressures on the prison system.
  The question of "fresh start" is not addressed in the Bill. Many industrial disputes rumble on. We must be fair and say that there are reasonable grounds for the POA to have grievances about the prison system. People who work in prisons see that the agreements that they thought they had reached at the outset of "fresh start" have been breached by the Government. Until there is a resolution, prisoners will continue to have grievances.
  I have talked to the prisoners at Wakefield. They recognise the reasonableness and legitimacy of the POA's position on "fresh start". The prisoners understand and sympathise with some of the actions that the association has been forced to take, although those actions have sometimes meant that they themselves have suffered.
  The Bill does not address the root causes of the prison crisis. It is a half-hearted measure—
  Mr. Vaz: Half-baked.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: As my hon. Friend says, the measure is half-baked. It scratches the surface of the symptoms, but it fails to address the root causes of the present prison crisis.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. David Martin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I do not agree with his analysis about the Government looking after number one and therefore encouraging people to commit crime. I do not believe, first, that there was any less crime under a Labour Government—in fact crime increased under every Labour Government I can remember—or, secondly, that encouraging people to better themselves, to make decisions for their lives and to improve their economic position has anything whatever to do with dishonest methods of doing just that. Although such a view is typical of some Opposition attitudes, it will never be accepted by Conservative Members.
  I wish to continue in that uncontroversial strain by referring to one or two opening comments by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who described the Bill as being produced merely to catch headlines and as an illusion of activity. If the previous Labour Government in which he served had only caught a few more headlines and been as active in prison improvements and new prison building as all Conservative Governments since 1979 have been, his comments could be taken more seriously. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under Labour in the 1970s, the prison population grew by about 15 per cent., while capital

  203
  spending was cut by 20 per cent., a fact to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred earlier.
  Mr. John Greenway: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Martin: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who makes encouraging noises, has also said—and it is worth repeating—spending on prison buildings has risen by leaps and bounds, with many new establishments being opened, providing extra places, while fewer prisoners now share cells, and slopping out is being phased out earlier than anyone thought possible. Those are facts, not just headlines or illusions.
  Of course, the running of prisons and their security and good order rely crucially on the staff working in them. It is self-evident that, without manpower of sufficient quality and in sufficient numbers, it does not matter how many technological advances or improvements there are. The prison officer using his eyes and ears is the first security patrol. I have been most impressed by the strength of this basic common sense at Her Majesty's prison in Kingston, which is in my constituency. It is a category B prison. It holds 150 prisoners, all serving life sentences. It is a case of each to his own cell with no slopping out. That has been the case for lifers since 1970.
  There are particular challenges in running a prison which has only those serving life sentences in it, yet it was not until earlier this year that any escape from that prison took place. It involved one prisoner who was recaptured soon afterwards. From the outset, that prison has been well governed. The first woman governor, Miss Muriel Allen, retired a little while ago and has been succeeded by Mr. Roy Merricks. That prison has been well governed by both governors while I have been Member of Parliament for Portsmouth, South.
  It has also been a tenet of good security that prisoners should spend the maximum time outside their cells being kept busy working. Of course that makes sense, as hon. Members have said. Plotting, planning and troublemaking are far less likely to take place under such a regime.
  Many people contribute positively to the right atmosphere at Kingston. Without their dedicated service, the prison would not be run so well as it is. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton referred to the 1,000 members of the Prison Service Union, which is seeking recognition from the Home Office. I understand that the figure is now nearer 1,500, with more than 30 members at Kingston. In the past two years, I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and her predecessors on the recognition point. I urge her to recognise that union without further delay.
  It will not please members of the Prison Officers Association, who have kept me well informed over the years. I do not dissent from much of what the hon. Member for Wakefield said about members of the Prison Officers Association. Always on my visits to Kingston I am treated with courtesy and consideration. As a result, I have always reported concerns to the various Ministers ultimately responsible for the prison and have obtained responses. I refer not only to issues about manpower and conditions arising out of the implementation of "fresh start" but to the clear opposition to privatisation of prison services, prisons or remand centres, on which I do not agree. In my view, there is scope for such development. I
  204
  agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale on that point.
  Those policies will be pursued by a Government who have proved beyond doubt to those working in the prisons their commitment to prison expansion and improvement as well as necessary increases and efficient practices in manpower. That must be contrasted with what occurred under Labour, and no doubt will occur again should we ever be unfortunate enough to have another Labour Government. Labour Governments are always constrained by cost considerations and by the financial disasters brought on by all the spending commitments that they claim are priorities and then have to jettison one by one. Prisons would come well down the list of priorities should Labour ever be in government, and those working in the prisons would soon discover that, too.
  Good industrial relations are in the interests of everybody working in prisons. Without them, as the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" says,
  "there can be no assurance that resources"—
  which means money, and I wish that people would say
  "money" rather than "resources"—
  "devoted to the prison service will be used effectively and efficiently in a way which fulfils the obligations of the prison service."
  Finally, in the interests of security, I welcome the Government's action as set out in the Bill. Of course the Bill will not sort out all the problems—it does not pretend to do that—but I wish it well in its passage through the House.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I do not believe that the Government would have introduced the Bill had a Woolf not been at the door. Of course we welcome the Woolf report and its careful examination of what happened during the Strangeways riot. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I was not able to join the hon. Gentleman on his visit to Strangeways, but the Committee decided to initiate an inquiry and report into precisely what happened at Strangeways. We were aware that, because of the Woolf inquiry, it was not possible to go into great detail into what happpened at Strangeways.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, my impressions of what I saw are the recollections of a person who was shocked by the wanton destruction that occurred during the riot. I visited the chapel at Strangeways prison to see the great destruction that had occurred, and I wondered whether human beings could have been responsible for it.
  I was escorted around the prison by members of the Prison Officers Association. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I pay tribute to the work of the Prison Officers Association. I deplore the recent attacks by Ministers and others on the association and what it is doing. It is putting forward the best possible case for the prison service. Of course its members gain because they work in the service, but they put forward their views because they want to make sure that the service does not collapse under the strain and we do not have a repetition of the destruction that we saw at Strangeways.

  205
  I pay tribute also to the work of the newly appointed governor of Leicester's prison on Welford road, Gerry Ross. I visited the prison four weeks ago, and I met him and members of the association. I also spoke to prisoners.
  Like many prisons in this country, Leicester prison is overcrowded. The message that I received from the governor and from the hard-working members of the association who work at Welford road is that there is a need for more resources to be put into the prison service.
  I look forward to the Home Secretary telling the Home Affairs Select Committee what he proposes to do with the prison service. I put him on notice that we shall ask him what he has done to provide extra resources to the prison service. We will ask him to justify the fact that so many prisons remain overcrowded. We will want to know what he is doing to address the POA's concerns about the operation of "fresh start".
  The right hon. Gentleman is smiling in anticipation of his forthcoming visit to the Committee. However, I give him notice that these are some of the questions that we shall be asking him, because they are very important indeed. Although the legislation before us will provide some elements and go some way towards meeting the criticisms of Government policy outlined in the Woolf report, it is important to realise that there is still a great deal that needs to be done.
  I look forward to seeing the amendments that will be tabled by my right hon. Friend for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others when they look in a measured way at the Bill and seek to amend it to provide the support for the prison service that is so desperately needed.
  I want also and in particular to draw attention to the grave concern that I and others feel about the number of young people being held in prisons. If there is a need for legislation in areas of prison policy, surely this is one area that ought to be considered very quickly by the Government.
  I refer the Home Secretary and the Minister to the article that appeared in The Guardian on Wednesday, 20 November, which gave the comments of the governor of the young offenders centre at Feltham in Middlesex. Reacting to the death of a young man in custody, he said:
  "I personally wish to say how abhorrent it is to have to deal with children, because that is what Geoffrey was—a child in a penal setting—and under the conditions in which I have to run Feltham, for want of staff."
  That is what the governor of that offenders centre had to say, and I should be very interested to know what the Minister of State has done since she read that report in the newspaper. The governor referred to a system that was bankrupt of compassion. Why that is so extraordinary is that governors of institutions of that kind tend not to want to give interviews to the press; they keep their views very much to themselves. They may speak to Members of Parliament and Ministers on a confidential basis, but it is very unusual to come out in terms of that kind and say that sort of thing.
  I hope that the Minister of State will provide information tonight that will assure the House that something positive will be done. I am sure that hon. Members need no convincing by me that teenagers must be removed from the penal system. The Home Secretary told me in an answer to a written question recently that he has
  206
  no plans to remove young people from the penal system. I think we are entitled to be told why. What tragedies must occur before he and the Minister of State will change their minds?
  I welcome the new Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provides for the ending of prison remand for 15 and 16-year-olds. However, it is clear that sufficient places in secure accommodation do not exist to meet the need created by that change in the law. In fact, there has been talk of it taking up to four years to give effect to this, during which time who knows how many young people will die, while the Home Office and the Home Secretary drag their feet? I should be glad if the Minister would comment on the suggestions that have been made that there is wrangling with other Government Departments over who has to pay for these places.
  While accepting that this lethal practice of placing 15 and 16-year-olds in prison must end for those on remand, the Home Secretary refuses to consider removing those serving sentences from the prison system. Does the fact that they are serving sentences made their lives less valuable? Apparently, 15 and 16-year-olds have to remain in prison while the Home Office argues with the Department of Health over what is to happen to them. The Department of Health wants to place more of them in community care, while the Home Office wants to place more of them in secure accommodation.
  Will the Minister of State confirm that young people will be placed in secure accommodation only when they represent a real danger to the public? Will she also confirm that secure accommodation will also be available where local authority homes are not able to provide such accommodation because of lack of funds? I hope that the Minister will address her comments to these important matters.
  The Minister also told me in a written reply about the education and social opportunities that were available to young offenders. Is she aware that the Feltham visitors' report, which I am sure she has had a chance to read, said that there were only 24 workshop training places for 256 young people? Is she also aware that, for 500 unconvicted young people, there are no organised activities or education whatsoever?
  These are very serious matters and I am glad to see that the civil servants are leaving the Box to find the answers. I would expect the right hon. Lady to give us the answers, because she still has time to absorb what her civil servants have to tell her.
  Today I have had a reply to a parliamentary question to the Minister, which tells me the latest figures of young people currently in young offender institutions. Of 14 and 15-year-olds, there are 67 in such institutions; of 16 to 19-year-olds, there are 3,110; and of 14 to 19-year-olds, there are 3,177. These are figures that the House is not prepared to tolerate. We expect some firm proposals from the Minister tonight, or at least when we debate this matter in Committee, that will assure the House that something will he done about this very dangerous situation.
  Finally, I pay tribute to the police service in Leicestershire. I refer to figures published by the Minister on 12 November, in which she sets out the number of prisoners currently held in police cells. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook gave a figure, but I wish to top it. The figures given to me show that there are 1,719 prisoners held in police cells. Of these, 227 are in

  207
  Greater Manchester, 36 in Leicestershire, 17 in Lincolnshire and 42 in Nottinghamshire—all east midlands constabularies.
  These figures cannot be tolerated or justified, either in cost terms or in terms of the most efficient use of police resources. The Minister will know that I and other Leicestershire Members from all parts of the House have continually asked for more officers to be allocated to Leicestershire. I pay tribute to Michael Hurst, the chief constable, and his senior and other officers for the work that they are doing.
  However, the plea continually made to us by senior police officers and members of the Police Federation and other organisations representing the police is that they do not have sufficient people. It is no wonder, when so many police officers appear to be doing the duties which prison officers should be doing and so many prisoners are placed in police cells. This means that police person power is being used on an issue and in an area where it really is not necessary.
  What does the Minister intend to do about the 1,719 prisoners who are being held in police cells? I do not want to know what she intends doing in a year's time or in 10 years' time, because she will not be in government then. What will she do now, when it is her responsibility as Minister of State and the responsibility of the Home Secretary to do something about it?
  Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend protested when he was accused of barracking by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I sought to interrupt to confess that I was responsible. There has been talk of a commitment to do away with slopping out by 1994. What I wanted to get at was that we have had such commitments before. Three successive Home Secretaries have stood at the Dispatch Box and pledged to do away with holding prisoners in police cells. That is why I objected to the assurance with which the hon. Member for Ryedale was arguing that this would happen. There is a wide difference between promise and performance.
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. We have had commitments from Home Secretaries and Ministers of State at the Dispatch Box, in Committee and in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, when they have promised to do various things, but they still have not done them. They pick a year in the future when they know that there will have been a general election and that they will probably not be in the same job as when they gave the commitment. The Minister of State will be under no time constraint this evening, and she will have plenty of time to tell us precisely what she will do about this serious subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield wondered why we had so many people in prison and in police cells. The reason is that crime has increased dramatically under the Government. The Minister of State turns away, but she and the Home Secretary have presided over the worst crime figures that the country has ever known.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was Home Secretary, he used to draft for us what he described as a crime clock. He divided the number of crimes by the number of minutes in an hour to show how many crimes were committed in a certain time. We do not have a crime clock any more; the clock broke because the figures were so devastating. It is impossible to get sensible statistics from it.
  208
  It is no use the Home Secretary saying that the high crime rate is due to other factors. The high level of crime and the resultant number of people in prison are due directly to the policies of the Government, which have created people who are greedy and selfish, a society where people are supposed to be on their own, a society which destroys the morale and the will of people who happen to be on benefits and on the poverty line. If the Minister of State wants to see what that is like, she should go into the City tonight and look at the number of people who are sleeping in the cold because there is no accommodation for them.
  It is no wonder that there are so many young offenders. They have no future because of the policies of the Government. Therefore, although we welcome legislation that deals with the serious issues, and although we have promised to consider it carefully in Committee, we cannot do anything about the crime figures. Only the Minister of State and the Home Secretary can do something about them. The Minister of State needs to address some important points. She has probably written her speech already, but I hope that she will include these points in her reply.
  First, the police must have additional resources to deal with the high level of crime; secondly, and more important, the Government have to change their policy, or there will be more people in prison. We are told that their slogan is the power to choose and the right to own; however, it has become the power to take and the right to steal. We want positive policies, and we want them now.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I have a prison in my constituency; indeed, it almost had two. I am not as familiar with Walton prison as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), but I have visited the prison and I have seen the conditions under which prisoners and staff have to labour.
  I mentioned that we almost had two prisons in Walton. What happened is instructive about the attitude of the Government. They proposed to locate a second prison in Walton, barely a mile and a half from Walton prison. It was to be a category B prison and it would have been the length of a cricket pitch away from the neurosurgical unit in Fazackerley hospital. Hon. Members can imagine how inept the Government must be to believe that overlooking a prison yard, floodlit day and night, would he conducive to the recuperation of neurosurgical patients. Because of local opposition and the intervention of my predecessor, Eric Heifer, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the Home Office was persuaded that it would not be wise to go ahead with that prison.
  I was dismayed when I heard the Home Secretary's statement. I had the pleasure of spending some years in Queensland, Australia. During that time I had the misfortune to visit the infamous Boggo road gaol; I stress that I was a visitor. I saw at first hand what a regressive prison regime does to prisoners. They were completely intimidated —but even under that very strict regime there was nothing to compare with the suggestion that if two or more people refused to get up from the dining table they might be liable to a 10-year prison sentence.

  209
  Like many hon. Members, I am receiving increasing amounts of mail from prisoners about simple matters —the right to exercise, the right to decent food and the implementation of the prison rules as they stand. We all know that, because of a lack of resources, a lack of foresight and a lack of a coherent strategy for dealing with the prison population, those matters are not being dealt with.
  Reference has been made to commitments about ending slopping out. I recall a commitment not so long ago to reduce the number or prisoners, yet the Home Secretary told us that there was an unexpected increase of 3,000 in the prison population. What effect does that have on prisoners? They become disaffected. I am talking about prisoners who do not want problems in serving their sentence; they want to serve it in a civilised fashion, where that is possible in any prison regime.
  Prison officers are equally prisoners of the system. The prison service does not have the staff or the resources to provide the rehabilitation that prisoners need and which many prison officers misguidedly joined the service to provide.
  My constituents who are in prison —I hope not for too long—are becoming increasingly disaffected. Unless there is drastic action based on the Woolf report, rather than the sort of band-aid solution that we have heard about today, I fear that there will be an increase in disturbances, especially if there is yet another unexpected surge in the prison population.
  Mr. Vaz: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that we require a firm commitment from the Government that more resources will be provided for the prison service? Instead of attacking the Prison Officers Association, the Government should spend more time ensuring that the money and resources are available that will enable the prison service to work; otherwise, the result will be the wanton destruction that occurred atStrangeways.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: That is absolutely right. We need more resources, but they must be properly targeted. I do not believe simply in throwing money at the prison service for the sake of it. Building new prisons, for example, is not necessarily the answer. We must have properly trained staff and we must provide some incentive for the prisoners themselves.
  I recently received a letter from a prisoner who was seeking my help. He was in Long Lartin prison when he wrote to me, but by the time that I was able to make contact with him, he had been transferred to Winson Green prison. I telephoned that prison only to learn that he had been transferred to Risley. When I telephoned Risley, I was told that the prisoner had been returned to Winson Green. My office rang that prison today and was told that the prisoner has now been transferred to Walton prison.
  Is that a useful deployment of resources? The man has two months of his sentence left to serve. A properly organised Department would have ensured that that man could be transferred immediately to his home prison for release. Such tales are legion—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I had just taken over the Chair and I thought that he was making an intervention. I hope that I have not put him off.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: You will have to forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have now lost my thread.
  Another prisoner wrote to me recently, and I am now seeking to get him transferred to a prison nearer his home in Liverpool. That man was being transferred from Dartmoor to the Isle of Wight. The problem was that I could not get a response from anybody in the Department. I seemed to go round in circles, and I am sure that that has happened to many hon. Members.
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about the ability of prisoners relatives to travel around the country. Does he share my concern about some prisoners being put in prisons that are so far away from their families that it is a difficult and expensive business for the wives and chilldren—especially if there are young children—to travel half way round the country to see their fathers or relatives? It seems to be the families that are being punished for what has happened.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Prisoners are often transferred so far away from their homes that the social problems become immense and the difficulties are exacerbated rather than diminished. It is the local authorities that must pick up the bill for those problems.
  Prisoner after prisoner has complained about the arbitrary way in which the prison regulations are enforced. It is not just a question of prison visits and of people being shifted far away from their homes, because telephone calls can also be a problem. A prisoner wrote to me stating that, although he was worried about his father's health, he was not allowed a telephone call. He was told that, if he behaved himself in the segregation block where he was being held, he would be allowed to make a call to his father who was seriously ill. Telephone calls are being held out as bait for good behaviour. That incident led to the man absconding from the prison just weeks before his sentence was due to end. That is no way to run a prison service.
  On the subject of Walton prison and the conditions there, I must pay credit to all its staff who work extremely hard. However, two of my constituents entered the prison service with the idea of working eventually in Walton prison, but they have ended up working in London. The families are now split up. The prison officers cannot afford accommodation in both places—in fact, they cannot afford accommodation in either—and they are contemplating leaving the prison service for what will probably be a life on the dole. That is happening simply because the prison service has been so badly mismanaged that the staff are disaffected.
  I regret that we hear continual attacks on members of the Prison Officers Association. As far as I am concerned, it is the only body that represents the prison officers, who work under great duress. We must recognise that they are getting a raw deal and are being victimised by the Government. The prison officers have been seen as one of the major reasons for, not one of the victims of, the mismanagement of the prison service.
  I sincerely hope that we shall have a change of Government in the not-too-distant future, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparbrook will be able

  211
  to rectify the wrongs that have been so obviously perpetrated by the Government on the prison service during the past 12 years.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: When I reply to debates, it is my custom to have heard all the speeches that have been made, so it is unfortunate that pressing circumstances outside the House have led me this evening to commit the grave discourtesy of not being in my place to hear as many speeches as I should have liked. I apologise to the House.
  The Opposition have grave reservations about the Bill. Our concerns go far beyond those that we anticipated in our debates on the Gracious Speech, which took place before we had sight of the text of the Bill although even at that stage we had our fears about its final form. At that time, our views were expressed eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley). At that point, we believed that the Bill would be an irrelevance and unnecessary given that prisoners can already be charged with a wide range of criminal offences, including offences under the Public Order Act 1986. We believed that the Bill would be totally inefectual in terms of deterring rioters.
  That was our opinion before we had read the Bill. Now that we have seen the text, our suspicions and fears are confirmed. I shall turn later to my perception of what the Home Secretary said earlier, and what some of his hon. Friends have said in his defence and aid. Much of what has been said by Conservative Members today seems to be a rearguard attempt to protect the Home Secretary and his sinking reputation.
  I will not call the Home Secretary any names, but I repeat the point made by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When the right hon. Gentleman came to that office, he had the opportunity to grasp the nettle of prison reform. Indeed, he had a unique and historic opportunity because the Strangeways riot had already occurred, and the Woolf-Tumim inquiry was in progress. If he had had any foresight, when the Woolf-Tumim report was published, the right hon. Gentleman would have said to himself, "Here is a unique and historic opportunity for me to make my reputation as one of the great Home Secretaries of the 20th century." Those of us concerned with criminal justice matters are disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not seize that opportunity.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said earlier, we have seen only a few small and rather insignificant measures that do not add up to a large impact on our criminal justice system, which is crying out for fundamental change. As I shall seek to argue, the opportunity was there; and the Home Secretary's failure has been that he did not grasp it. He will carry disappointment with him for the rest of his political career and, indeed, to the end of his days. Instead of seizing the opportunity to become one of the great Home Secretaries of the 20th century, he remains a rather shaky party politician.
  Our view of the Bill has been expressed most clearly by the Government themselves in their White Paper, "The Prison Disciplinary System of England and Wales", which was published in 1986 in response to the Prior committee report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook referred to that, and it does not harm us—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: There is no one else here.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary is worried about my declining audience. We shall see what audience his right hon. Friend the Minister of State has when it is her turn to speak.
  I quote from the Government's 1985 report. It is a quotation to which the Home Secretary should listen to which his right hon. Friend the Minister of State should reply:
  "Since the Prior Committee's report was published, the Government's Public Order Bill (now the Public Order Act) has been brought before Parliament. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 create new statutory offences of riot, violent disorder and affray, with maximum penalties of 10, 5 and 3 years respectively. Clause 4 creates an offence of threatening or insulting behaviour which replaces the offence in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. All these offences can be committed inside a prison establishment. Accordingly the use or threat of violence in connection with a prison mutiny can be dealt with under the general criminal law. Given the restructuring of public order offences in the Public Order Bill, the Government's view is that there is no need for a further specific offence of prison mutiny."
  I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why the Government's policy has changed since 1985.
  I can perhaps anticipate what the Minister will say. She might say, and I would not blame her for saying, that the Strangeways riot and the riots associated with it have given cause for a total and radical rethink. In some ways, she might be justified in using that argument. However, Lord Justice Woolf was asked to inquire into Strangeways and the other riots. He produced a report which is highly regarded. I have heard no demur from the opinion that the Woolf report is the finc,t document for 100 years on what is wrong with our prisons and the penal system and how to put it right. Everyone agrees that it is the report, and that there is no point in having a royal commission after Woolf. It is a brilliant report. Everyone who has knowledge of the criminal justice system says that Woolf is where it is at, and that, if the Home Secretary implemented Woolf within a reasonable timetable and with reasonable resources, he would have done what was needed.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, in his wide range of recommendations Lord Justice Woolf rejected a special measure to deal with prison riots and disturbances. The many days spent not only taking oral and written evidence but taking part in the interesting innovation of seminars in which all the participants in the criminal justice system could come together and discuss the issues convinced him that there was no call and no advocate for the creation of a specific offence.
  The Home Secretary said that he had found prison governors who were in favour of the Bill. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Minister will name some of them. Certainly, the Prison Governors Association is not in favour of it. It is the time of year and the period of political history when many of the great campaigning organisations in penal reform have their anniversaries. The Prison Reform Trust recently had its 10th anniversary party. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders recently had its 25th anniversary. They were pleasant occasions, at which the Home Secretary was present. He would not find anyone among the people celebrating those events who was in favour of the legislation except his own Parliamentary Private Secretary who was also present, but that is to be expected.

  213
  When the public think of prison mutiny, they have in mind events such as those at Strangeways, when prisoners attempted to overthrow legitimate authority in a violent manner. That is the very event envisaged in clause 1(2)(a). If the Bill had stopped there, we would have supported it as an unnecessary but reasonably harmless measure, but it goes far beyond the type of incident about which we are all deeply worried.
  Clause 1(2)(b) defines a mutiny as where two or more prisoners
  "collectively resist, impede or disobey any exercise of lawful authority in the prison in such circumstances as to make their conduct subversive of order in the prison."
  That is amazing. Who drafted it? I do not know who pays the salaries of the people who drafted it. It is an astonishingly broad remit. Presumably we shall have a good chew at the clause in Committee, but if it remains in that form we shall certainly be unable to support the Bill on Third Reading.
  I said today to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that if the Oliver Twist story were translated from the workhouse to a prison, the person who drew the short straw and was sent to protest about the food would come within the net of the Bill. It would be necessary only to produce evidence of the drawing of straws and some sort of conspiracy to send Oliver Twist to ask for more. It is ridiculous. Many protests in our prisons are about food, which is extremely important to the prisoners. They protest when the food is not up to standard or of the quality that they have come to expect.
  Clause 1(4) says:
  "Where there is a prison mutiny, a prisoner who has or is given a reasonable opportunity of submitting to lawful authority and fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as taking part in the mutiny."
  Again, the commission of this serious offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, need not involve any use or threat of violence. We find it amazing that men and women who take part in an action that does not use or threaten violence will have such a penalty thrown at them under the terms of the Bill.
  No alarm, distress or breach of the peace need be caused. What is more, according to clause 1(3) there is no mens rea for the offence. Prisoners' intentions are inferred from their behaviour. Let us compare that with the offence of riot under the Public Order Act 1986, which also carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. It is an important comparison. Under the Act, a riot occurs
  "Where 12 or more persons…use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them … is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety."
  The same safeguards occur for the offences of violent disorder and affray, where the maximum sentences are considerably lower—five and three years respectively.
  Let us consider what behaviour would be caught by the wide definitions in clause 1. First, prisoners will have disobeyed lawful authority if two or more of them have been involved in a sit-down protest in the yard about food or have refused to work in the workshop. I was talking to a prison officer this morning. He said that the legislation was unworkable. It is the normal daily routine in the prison that prisoners refuse to obey when upset about some change in routine or something that has happened.
  214
  The Minister of State has visited many prison establishments since she took on her job, so she knows the mentality and psychology of prison inmates. She will be aware of the trigger points and catalysts that set off a disturbance. The Secretary of State made a short speech in which he said nothing about the main thrust of the argument and the criticisms that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and those who have lobbied him have made. I am making that criticism in detail, and I hope that the Minister of State will give us some answers.
  We have to run our prisons on the basis of a law that works. Great damage can be done if we introduce an unworkable Bill. Legislation that no one understands and that no one can work with in any meaningful way will bring the law into contempt and may do more damage than good—it may backfire on those who drafted the Bill.
  Sit-down protests in the yard about food or refusing to work in the workshop because the rota or the work has been changed without consultation are everyday occurrences. If two prisoners are involved in a rooftop protest to proclaim their innocence, they will be committing an offence. I do not like rooftop protests. I do not like people climbing up on to roofs and damaging them, but we must put that in perspective. Men who were later found to be innocent have used that means of protest to draw attention to the injustice of their sentence and conviction. There is a difference between mutiny and someone climbing on to a roof and saying that he is innocent but has had to go to that extreme. I do not condone it, but I understand it, and bringing it within the terms of the Bill is dangerous, because it would criminalise non-violent civil disobedience.
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: Rubbish.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Whip, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is a great expert on such matters, says, "Rubbish." If it is rubbish, it is the rubbish that every informed person and knowledgeable pressure group involved with the penal system is coming out with. If the Whip—who does not usually say much, thank goodness —thinks that that is rubbish, I refer him to NACRO, the Prison Governors Association, the POA, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust and New Bridge. We could meet some of them and he can tell them that it is rubbish. Perhaps we should go to one of his local prisons—there are several near his constituency. We could talk to the governor and see whether he says that it is rubbish.
  The questions that I am asking are the questions that the informed and high quality lobby outside is asking. I have the opportunity to ask those questions at the Dispatch Box and I have the right to expect an answer, even in these late days of a regime which does not believe in parliamentary accountability any more.
  Everyone accepts that prison authorities must have powers to discipline the non-violent prisoners I have described, but they have those powers under rule 47(19) of the prison rules, which make it a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to disobey any lawful order.
  I was interested when one of the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland explained how the system works there. That shed some light, and I hope that the Minister learned from it. To charge prisoners with a serious criminal offence in those circumstances is

  215
  draconian and totally inappropriate. The Bill was not designed to deal with that sort of non-violent activity, and we have to do something about it.
  Official prison returns show the extent of non-violent protests. My hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook gave the figures earlier, hut they bear repeating. Between March and June 1991 there were 23 food protests, six rooftop demonstrations and 29 allegations of concerted indiscipline—a total of 58 protests.
  A prison officer told me this morning that officers are paid to deal with that type of activity. He said that those were fairly normal occurrences. They are anticipated and are part of the job. All such incidents would fall within the scope of the Bill and would be criminalised. If the law were used in that way, it would undermine confidence in the process of prison reform. There are protests about conditions in many of our prisons.
  I want to bring home to the Minister and to the Home Secretary that we are worried about the Bill because it seems like a sticking plaster job. It dwells on the surface of the problem and is peripheral to it. We keep invoking the Woolf report because it got beneath the surface. It got away from the periphery of the debate and went to the heart of the matter. Woolf drew our attention to the reason why the prison system in 1990–91 is a disgrace to a modern civilised nation. In every paragraph of that thick report, he pointed out that rotten, insanitary, and especially overcrowded prisons are the problem. The Strangeways riot and prison indiscipline resulted from packing men into inhumane conditions and treating them as less than human. That is the truth about our prisons.
  I intervened on one hon. Member earlier who was being unusually nice about some of the things that happen in a few prisons. He was talking about work and assessing prisoners' potential for training. When I became interested in the penal system, I was horrified to find that that has not happened for years. There are about 47,000 prisoners, and the number is rising. Is it not possible to have a management structure which knows who the prisoners are, what they are doing, and their possibilities for education and training? Is it not possible to have a proper personnel file on each prisoner, to assess their potential for rehabilitation and their progress? Is it not possible to anticipate what stage one wants them to get to by the time they have served their sentence?
  In the past few years. we have witnessed the Home Office's inability to tackle the fundamentals of the problem. We have also witnessed its ability to do great damage because it has been unable to stand up for the prison service with other Departments.
  Yesterday morning, I was at a meeting called by the National Association of Probation Officers about employment opportunities for prisoners. It was not only dreary because very little was happening as regards employment opportunities for prisoners. A high percentage of prisoners—80 per cent.—cannot find employment when they come out of prison and stay unemployed. Consider the impetus to reoffend in those circumstances.
  In the great drive towards privatisation and to make the Department of Employment more efficient, the Minister's colleagues got rid of the counselling service for prisoners before and on release. I wonder if they brag about that. I suppose that the Whip will say that that is rubbish, too, but it is true. That was a damaging blow to the prison service.
  216
  What a disgrace in 1991. Where was the Home Secretary when that decision was taken, a decision that damaged prisoners' opportunities? Probably it was not his fault but was the decision of a previous Home Secretary or one of his underlings. I do not know. There will no doubt be some excuse.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was absolutely right. We must recognise why the Bill is thought to be so irritating by people outside: it is because it is a Missed opportunity. We have an opportunity to create a good Bill—one that we could be proud of. I have often told the Home Secretary, although he does not like it, that he should come to the centre ground of informed opinion on penal affairs. He should throw off his ideological blinkers and join those of us who believe that Woolf, with a timetable and resources—something which his recent White Paper studiously avoided—is the way ahead.
  We have no real timetable, unless one believes in the time mentioned by the Home Secretary, who referred to what might happen in the next 20 to 25 years. As John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. Nearly everybody now in the prison system will be out of it by the time the Home Secretary has finished reforming it. [Interruption.] All those now in prison will be out by then. Up to 25 years is too long for the radical reforms for which Woolf called. We want them much faster.
  As I explained, if the law were used against non-violent disturbances in prison, it would undermine confidence in the process of prison reform. In many prisons, protests about conditions happen because the conditions are deplorable.
  Lord Justice Woolf could not have made the case for reform more clearly. A key message to come out of his report is the need for justice in prison—the need for a mechanism to ensure that grievances can be aired. As he says, without justice, security and control inside prisons are compromised. The Bill flies in the face of justice. The use of the criminal law is no answer to legitimate protest.
  Lord Justice Woolf, in his exhaustive report designed to prevent future prison riots, did not propose an offence of prison mutiny. Instead, in his 204 recommendations, he provided for a comprehensive list of reforms, including the need for accredited standards in prison, a new prison rule preventing overcrowding and the establishment of compacts with prisoners setting out their expectations and responsibilities. The idea of the compact went to the very heart of Woolf, but we have heard little about the concept. I know that Lord Justice Woolf himself believed that it went to the very essence of his report, but it was nicely sidestepped in the White Paper.
  The Government's response to Woolf, in their White Paper, makes depressing reading. The White Paper rejects the proposal to end overcrowding and is notable for its avoidance of dates and timetables for implementing reform. Yet improving conditions and reducing overcrowding would have been a far more effective antidote to riotous behaviour than this measure. Parliamentary time should have been devoted to those parts of the Woolf report which require legislation and not wasted on this unnecessary measure.
  Why are the Government so intent on pressing ahead with the Bill at this time? The answer lies in the Home Secretary's attempt to shore up his crumbling reputation.
  Mr. Kirkhope: Oh dear!
  Mr. Sheerman: I will willingly give way to the Whip if he wishes to intervene. [Intervention.] I think that the Home Secretary is making a comment, possibly about the length of my speech. If the time is up for anyone, it is up for him. The right hon. Gentleman is hoping that by sounding tough he can restore some of his credibility. The real problems facing the prison service deserve a considered response, not a political fix. To those who care about these issues, the right hon. Gentleman's reputation is less important than a proper path to constructive reform.
  The Home Secretary cannot run away from the House forever. At some stage he will have to make a statement on the Brixton escapes. Clause 2 of the Bill is all about escapes. It increases the penalty for assisting an escape from five to 10 years and provides that the offence can be committed by sending something into a prison. How reassuring! But the real issue is making prisons sufficiently secure to ensure that prisoners cannot escape. It is no use increasing the penalty if prisoners can get over the wall —especially if, as is alleged, they received considerable help from special branch. If I had special branch helping me to get into or out of a prison, I would expect to succeed.
  I suppose it is somewhat reassuring to know that members of special branch may be liable to longer sentences if they assisted the escape from Brixton. It would be far more helpful in preventing a repetition of that appalling bungle if the Home Secretary would tell the House what really happened, how those men could have been allowed to escape, and what action he proposes to prevent such an escape ever happening again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook dwelt, justifiably, at length on that issue.
  We are engaged in the European debate just now and are expressing worries about parliamentary responsibility and accountability. On an issue of great public concern, two of the allegedly most dangerous terrorists that we had behind bars in this country were allowed to escape. There is a total scandal about how they escaped and about whether special branch was involved in the escape. The Home Secretary has cheated the House of its right to an account of what went on.
  Whether we be politicians or pundits, we feel cheated over the fact that the Home Secretary has not told us what went on. It is amazing that the Home Secretary should have been able to refuse to do that. If he has nothing to hide, why did he not make a statement? Why would he not accept the duty of a Home Secretary and be prepared to be asked questions by Members of the Opposition and others? What does he have to hide? We ask him again to change his mind and to clear the air. Those two dangerous men are still out there. The British public want an inkling of what went on and how those men were allowed to escape. We shall continue to press for an explanation.
  The Opposition had anticipated that the Bill would he an irrelevance to the issue of preventing riots in prison, but it has proved to be far worse than we had expected—undermining civil liberties, criminalising non-violent protest and ultimately precipitating the very kind of disruptive behaviour that it was ostensibly designed to prevent.
  We shall be working in Committee for major changes to be made to the Bill. I am sure that, in that process, the Minister of State and I will be engaged for some time in trying to make it a more palatable and acceptable measure. I do not hold out high hopes for it at this stage, but we
  218
  shall do our best, for considering measures of this type should not be a question of party political concern: we all want a better penal system. We have consistently offered to be co-operative on such measures if we believe tham to be progressive and in the spirit of the Woolf report, but if such changes are not forthcoming, we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
  8.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I wish at the outset to reiterate my belief that the scenes people saw on their television screens during April 1990 were genuinely acclaimed as an absolute disgrace. They were, unfortunately, a disgrace to the prison service. It was disgraceful that it was possible for prisoners to take that sort of action.
  The Opposition misunderstand the reasons for the Bill. Despite the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the previous Home Secretary—now Lord Waddington—at the time of the occurrences at Strangeways and other prisons in April was so shocked by them that he had a strong urge to reconsider the whole matter. He responded to the public outcry and said that further thought should be given to whether there should be a new offence of prison mutiny. When the present Home Secretary came to office, he considered that issue and agreed with his predecessor.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) have all said that there is a misunderstanding of the public's concern about what happens in our prisons and what is acceptable. The Opposition must accept that people are genuinely upset, worried and, to a certain extent, disgusted when they see riots and misbehaviour in prisons.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that, if people refuse to obey an instruction—for example, to leave a dining hall —that may be considered to be undermining discipline. The test is not whether an act undermines discipline, but whether a protest is subversive of order. That is the critical test. It will therefore be limited only to very serious events. Surely there can be no objection to introducing an offence for serious incidents. It is not for minor incidents, as Opposition Members have been at pains to imply. That is not the Bill's intention.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the intention is to limit the Bill to serious matters, I take it for granted that suitable amendments will be accepted in Committee to make that clear. More important, will the Minister give an example of a serious matter that would be caught and punished under the Bill with a maximum sentence of 10 years, but would not be caught and punished under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of 10 years?
  Mrs. Rumbold: The Bill will apply if a number of people within a prison refuse consistently to allow a prison officer to continue his duties and undermine the governor's lawful control of that prison. That is not exactly the same.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Lady must have misunderstood my question. I understand how the Bill could be applied. My question is which of the situations to which it could be applied would not be appropriate to the Public Order Act?
  Mrs. Rumbold: Under the Bill, mutiny means any action or omission, which need not be violent, but which —this is the important point—destroys the lawful authority of the governor, with the result that he may lose complete control of the prison. The consequences or potential consequences are relevant, rather than the acts of disobedience. We must not lose sight of that fact, as it lies at the heart of the Bill.
  Mr. Lawrence: May I try to assist my hon. Friend? If a judge considers what sentence should be imposed for that kind of misbehaviour, he will have regard to the fact that Parliament has deliberately decided to make an offence of prison mutiny, which he will consider will require a harsher sentence than he might otherwise impose under the Public Order Act.
  Mrs. Rumbold: That is precisely what would happen. For minor offences, a prison officer will still be able to give the internal punishments to which he has had access in the past. Since Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations, the boards of visitors will no longer necessarily have that task.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) touched on a number of issues, including the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" eloquently covers all those recommendations and contains extensive responses to the whole of Lord Justice Woolf's report. It has been carefully thought through and our responses have been welcomed by Lord Justice Woolf, who said that he was satisfied with how the Home Secretary handled the matter after the report.
  Mr. Sheerman: Just for the information of the House, when did Lord Justice Woolf give his approval?
  Mrs. Rumbold: When the White Paper was published, Lord Justice Woolf was perfectly happy to intimate publicly that he thought that it was a good response to his report. If the hon. Gentleman missed that, that is his problem—it is certainly not ours.
  Several Opposition Members said that we should deal with overcrowding if we wished to tackle the difficulties within our prisons. There is no doubt that we should be looking at prison regimes. No one will deny that what has happened in our prisons is not acceptable in this day and age. I would not dream of saying that our prisons were running ideally, but many of the difficulties that the Government and earlier Governments have found were caused by the disgraceful inheritance of poor prison buildings that required a substantial injection of public funds.
  Mr. Vaz: What does the Minister intend to do about the 3,000 young people in prison and the 1,700 prisoners who are being held in police cells? Does she have solutions to those problems?
  Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall endeavour to answer some of those questions. First, I want to tackle the accusations by Opposition Members about overcrowding.
  My right hon. Friend has been tackling that problem—his predecessor also tackled it—by instigating a substantial new-build programme to replace old prisons and refurbish existing ones. There are now some 125
  220
  prisons in this country and there will be another 12 between 1992 and 1994, which will provide an additional 5,000 places within the prison system,
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook argued that the right way to tackle the problem was not simply to provide more space within the prison system. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman and a number of Conservative Members would agree that people who must be kept within the prison system, must be kept in decent and humane conditions. That is one of our most urgent priorities, and it was backed up the Home Secretary in his speedy response on slopping out. He has brought forward by two years the date recommended by Lord Justice Woolf to end the disgraceful measure of slopping out. We should all congratulate my right hon. Friend for that. The Government's efforts on tackling the problems of prison buildings and overcrowding are beginning to come together.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the number of people who enter the prison system. That, too, has been dealt with by the Government. The Criminal Justice Act 1991—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) served on the Committee and well knows the arguments—contains many different systems. We shall endeavour to keep people who should not go to prison out of it by ensuring that courts have non-custodial sentences available to them. People will then be able to serve sentences within the community rather than in prisons.
  I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) later.
  Mr. Sheerman: The Minister should not mislead the House about what happened in Committee, when there was agreement on some matters in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We told the Government time and again that, unless they grasped the nettle and introduced some sentencing reform and a sentencing council, they would never crack the problem of overcrowding in our prisons and the fact that more people are in prison in this country than in any other country in Europe. We said that, if they did not grasp the nettle, no matter how many prisons they built, they would surely fill them, as the Americans have found to their cost. In the past 15 years, the American prison population has risen from 600,000 to almost 1·3 million. Is that the course she predicts for this country?
  Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman has a whimsical addiction to the notion that sentencing councils would prevent many people from entering prisons. I do not agree with that philosophy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) made sensible comments about long-term prisoners. I shall take up his offer to write to him on the issues he mentioned. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that it is perfectly right to declare that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not wish the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland at present.
  I am sad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not present, because I wanted to address some of the issues that he raised, including the necessity for good regimes—a point on which I agree with him. I shall reiterate the view of the Government on the matter of prison officers, which was raised by a number of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. No Conservative

  221
  Member and certainly no Minister would ever do other than say that we recognise what a difficult task the people who work within our prisons have and how much we admire them for the work they do in prisons throughout the country. I want that placed on record. I pay tribute to their good work, especially that which is and was done at the time of the riots at Strangeways and other prisons.
  We recognise the bravery that prison officers show and the difficulty and stress under which they work. It is important that when we tackle each of the issues raised by Lord Justice Woolf in his report, we take the prison officers with us because they are the ones who have to build up trust within the prisons. It is important to build up trust between prisoners and prison officers. If we achieve such a regime, it will prove the best way to prevent the sort of disturbances and riots that have occurred.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned the Prison Governors Association. The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" clearly stated that we intended to introduce the Bill. We gave prison governors and others the opportunity to comment on the White Paper. They have not yet done so, and no one to whom I have spoken has shown any intention of questioning us on that issue.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke of the board of visitors and its changing role within the prison system. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made some interesting comments about his experiences as chairman of the board of visitors and the way in which prisoners had to go through the system. Lord Justice Woolf recommended that the board of visitors should act much more in the nature of watchdogs in prisons. I agree, and believe that that would be a much more satisfactory way for the board to discharge its duties, with prison officers given the task of adjudicating on small offences —events that happen as a matter of course, and which Opposition Members have claimed that the Bill is all about. That is not true; small matters will continue to be dealt with within prisons.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made a number of points that were also reiterated by many of my hon. Friends. He mentioned Manchester and its police force. He will be glad to know that I shall be visiting Manchester next Monday to see the position for myself. I think that the message that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave earlier will have been well understood by the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the concern of the Greater Manchester policy authority and have been in correspondence with it. I shall listen to whatever worries it expresses when I visit the city on Monday. I am conscious
  222
  that the Manchester police and neighbouring forces have had to accommodate more prisoners in police cells than forces in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister bring a message to the Manchester police to ensure them that their present burden, at least, will be reduced, especially over the Christmas period? At that time, there are often people in police cells who have been arrested rather than remanded there by the courts.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the issue of the additional number of prisoners has been overtaken by events. Earlier in 1991, we were looking at a reducing the prison population, but unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the prison population has escalated by 3,000 more people than originally predicted. As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know, that number will be traditionally reduced over the Christmas period. Whether that position will be sustained post-Christmas is an issue we shall have to address later, and I shall certainly tackle it. I want to see for myself at first hand exactly what the position is in Manchester. I shall look at and listen with interest to the suggestions that will no doubt be made to me when I make my visit.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East talked about youths in custody and asked me to comment on the death of a 15-year-old at a young offenders institute at Feltham. I think that I know the governor there as well as he does. We intend to phase out remand for 15 and 16-year-olds as soon as possible. We need to build more secure accommodation, which will take some time. There is no wrangle within Government over the money for that. We agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we certainly agree with Joe Whitty. I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman. On a positive note, we are trying to ensure that juveniles on remand in local prisons are given as positive a regime as possible.
  The introduction of the Bill, which is a small but significant and important measure, is in no way a Government response to an issue that has suddenly arisen. It is in response to a serious concern expressed by a number of people throughout the country. The general public expect Governments to act firmly when they see issues of great concern to themselves. They are genuinely worried about the sort of things that happened in our prisons last April. They are worried about the effect of escapes. They wish to be reassured and to know that people who commit such offences within our prisons, or coming out of our prisons, will be punished. This small Bill does exactly that, and I trust that it will command universal support outside the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Contempt of Court
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  8.58 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: I rise to raise the subject of the operation of the law on contempt of court. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have wished to be in the Chamber and perhaps to speak in the debate, but, because the Government's business has been dealt with with more rapidity than they would have expected, they will be disappointed.
  I am aware that a former colleague and writer on a national paper would have wished me to use my words with great care, but during the past few weeks Leicestershire has experienced the most horrific trial. I do not wish to deal with that trial, but something happened in the course of it which has astounded people and made them want to look again at the way in which we conduct ourselves and our trials in court.
  In the course of that trial, one of the defendants, the major defendant, an evil man, chose to use the name of an honoured colleague in the House entirely for his own ends. He was determined, I think, to try to blackmail the—I almost put it in quotation marks—establishment.
  I think that the defendant felt that, by naming persons who were in public life and putting them forward as people from whom children had to be defended—this was a child abuse case —he might frighten the authorities into not prosecuting or not pursuing the prosecution with the vigour that one might have expected. The defendant was wrong about that. He should have known that in Britain we conduct our prosecutions independently and fairly.
  The defendant could not achieve his objective, but he sought to do so during the course of the trial, and anything said in the course of a trial is not subject to the laws of slander or libel when it is reported in newspapers. It was spread throughout the newspapers the length and breadth of the country, on the radio and on television.
  The problem is that a person in that position has no way of defending his good name. If that person were immediately to issue a statement, which is the very least that one would expect could be done, he or she would be in contempt of court. The jury has to decide the case, and if anyone issued a statement denying that a witness or person is telling the truth, that would be a contempt of court. It would be interfering with the course of justice. It could be said that it would be trying to influence the jury to disbelieve the person who made the statement. So that person is in a hopeless and helpless position.
  When such events happen so close to home, it strikes most hon. Members that this is an unjust and unfair procedure. There cannot be any justice in a person being pilloried, taken from pillar to post, by the press, when people are looking at him askance. The hon. Member concerned has not even been able to deny the allegations. He has not even been able to say that they are untrue. It affects himself and his family, and it must be a living hell.
  Because that has happened to an hon. Member does not mean that it will not happen and has not happened to others who are not in the House. That is a danger into which any one of us could fall, and there is no way that one could stop it happening.
  I recognise that, during any trial, it is absolutely necessary that the defendant and witnesses should be free
  224
  to give evidence—because if constraints were placed on them in that regard, it could not be a fair trial. Mr. Beck was certainly given a fair trial—and a run for his money.
  Having said that, there ought to be a way of excluding gratuitous evidence affecting those who cannot protect themselves from newspaper, television, and radio coverage of a trial—such as is done in the case of rape victims.
  Ms. Clare Short: Sometimes.
  Mr. Ashby: In most cases, I hope. I thought that, these days, such protection was given almost without exception. In blackmail cases—the trial to which I referred earlier was a form of blackmail—the judge directs that the name of the blackmailer's victim should not be disclosed in open court, but instead it is written down and presented to the court in that way.
  That is a case in which the judge has a discretion—but I am not sure that the judge would always want to have that discretion. In any event, the identity of an individual who has no opportunity to defend himself should not be disclosed by the media. That would not affect the trial. Witnesses would be permitted to say what they wanted without fear or favour, but the innocent person would be protected.
  It would require only a small clause in the next Criminal Justice Bill to provide that protection. Such a provision would be well in keeping with the most excellent policy of this Government of protecting the innocent. which has extended to withholding the identity of rape victims, and of children giving evidence in child abuse cases. We have a good history of improving the processes in our courts, of ensuring that injustices do not occur.
  Needless to say, there must be justice for the defendant, and for the public, in terms of the defendant being properly prosecuted—but there must be justice also for innocent people who find themselves caught up in a trial and unable to control what is said about them. That would be well in keeping with everything that we have said over the years. Such an improvement should take place in our criminal justice system.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will consider that it is time that their respective Departments started devising such a provision, so that it will be ready for the next Criminal Justice Bill and that further dreadful injustices will not be perpetrated.
  I refer to the Member of Parliament for Leicester, West —as has my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham)—as my hon. and learned Friend. There have been times when we were adversaries, and we fought tooth and nail in this very Chamber when I first entered Parliament—but outside it, we are friends. In this Chamber, and on this matter, I call him my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I say that he and his family should not have been subjected to the ordeal that they were, and that we should strive to ensure decency in the courts in future.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Many hon. Members have a great regard for our hon. and learned colleague, the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), with the accent on "honourable". Many of us are not lawyers—happily, or unhappily for our pockets—so will my hon. Friend confirm that any wretched creature, such as this awful man who lampooned and libelled our good colleague, can say whatever they like

  225
  about any of us, yet if we defend ourselves we are in contempt of court? If that is so, I am sure that the House and the other place will want to sweep it to one side straight away. It is a calumny that none of us should have to put up with.
  Mr. Ashby: I thought that I had made it clear. Joe Bloggs, who may never have visited Cornwall, could go to Bodmin court and make what statements he wished about someone. It would increase the sentence, but when someone is facing a life sentence, or five life sentences, it does not make much difference.
  I wish to draw my remarks to a close, so that other hon. Members may speak in this important debate.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) for his friendship, for his kindness and especially for his courtesy in arranging this important debate. In the House, the enemy is sometimes behind one, but on this occasion it does not exist, and I am immensely grateful.
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West eloquently explained the laws on contempt and how they rightly protect those who are on trial. Wrongly, that law too often leaves those who are not on trial, but whose good names are unjustifiably savaged in court, totally unprotected. That is wrong.
  Anyone involved in a trial can make any allegations they wish about anyone else—provided that the judge cannot disallow them as irrelevant—however harmful, horrendous and vile the lies may be. Those whose representations are attacked are forbidden even to deny the allegations. To do so would be a criminal offence—contempt of court.
  As the House knows, Frank Beck of Leicester was convicted of a series of filthy and most serious crimes and received what must be a near record sentence—five life terms and a total of 24 years' imprisonment. He called Paul Winston as a witness. Long ago, when Winston was a deprived youngster living in a Leicestershire children's home, my family and I tried, unsuccessfully, to help him. Soon after, he was placed in a home run by Beck. After 15 years of Beck's influence—including a period when Winston lodged in Beck's private home—and after I had refused to provide Beck with references and shortly before Beck's trial was due to begin, they combined to make disgraceful, contemptible and totally untrue allegations of criminal conduct against me.
  Their motive was made blazingly clear by a letter that I received only yesterday from a former cellmate of Beck's. I do not know the man, but he took it on himself to communicate with me. He writes that Beck told him that he—Beck —was going to frame me. According to Beck, that would take the light off him. To that end, Beck had enlisted the help of Winston. The former cellmate also wrote that the police knew that he was willing to give evidence to that effect if the Crown thought it necessary to call him. In the event, it did not, but the allegations against me were precisely as the prosecution alleged in Beck's trial —an attempted diversion from the reality of Beck's guilt. Both verdict and sentence showed—happily—that the attempt failed totally.
  226
  However, is it not horrendous that Beck and Winston were able to make such terrible and lying accusations against me in court and that the media could, and with honourable exceptions did, report these falsehoods, all under the cloak of absolute privilege? I had effectively no legal rights in the matter, and I was not allowed even to nail the lies. No wonder many people were mystified by my uncharacteristic silence —it was imposed by the cruel operation of the rules on contempt.
  Happily, I am a fairly tough character. I have been able to ride out the agony on this ordeal in good heart. But it has not been easy. As a Member of Parliament, I am now well placed to fight back. That would not have applied to any of our constituents or to any other citizens placed by law in this impossible and unjust situation.
  The injustice was both apparent and real. It imposed a special burden on my wife, on my children, on my mother and my sister and on all my family. I pay my loving tribute to them for their staunch and cheerful support during our shared ordeal. I also thank the many hundreds of people who have so kindly written, spoken to or telephoned us to express their affectionate encouragement. Several of them were themselves victims of Frank Beck. I salute their courage and send them my profound sympathy. We ourselves have received nothing but kindness, confidence and concern. We are very grateful. We are deeply blessed with our friends, not least those on both sides of the House and our friends in Leicester, West.
  Surely there should now be a swift review of these injustices in our law and its practice. Surely it must be wrong for people who have no part in a trial to be open to venomous, preposterous attacks, with no remedy, no recompense and, above all, no right of reply. Surely others should not be forced to suffer as we have done. If such a review does lead to a just and useful alteration in the operation of the law of contempt, we shall not have suffered in vain.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: It is a privilege to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who has given distinguished service to the city and county of Leicester and Leicestershire for more than 21 years in this House. He has made it clear—yesterday and today—that there is absolutely no truth in the horrible allegations that were made against him in the Beck trial. The House, of course, immediately and unreservedly accepts that statement from him. It extends to him its affection and sympathy in the abominable ordeal which he, his beloved wife Myra and all his family have endured for so long.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's many friends in Leicestershire, of which I am very proud to count myself one, and indeed anyone in Leicestershire who knew anything about the matter, never believed any of the repulsive muck for one moment. However, it grieved us greatly that he had to endure it, and that there was no way in which he could clear his name and answer the vile accusations without prejudicing the trial of Beck. There must be a better system than that. Any public figure—indeed, any private figure—could find himself or herself trapped for months in the same nightmare as the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The House has a proud record of friendship and of closing ranks, irrespective of party allegiance, around

  227
  those of its Members who are unjustly attacked or threatened. I hope that that day has now dawned for the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West after the long night of despair, but we should now, as a matter of urgency, examine the existing procedures to ensure that such a horrible event, without any redress for those who have been so long and so unjustly traduced, can never happen again.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I first met my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) when, at his invitation, I came to the House with his son to see how Parliament operated. I would not have believed that a few years later I would have been selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Leicester, East, and would be his neighbour.
  I am delighted to be here today to give my hon. and learned Friend my full support. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) cannot be here today because of his parliamentary duties in Northern Ireland, but he joins me in believing my hon. and learned Friend to be the victim of a cowardly and wicked attack by people who simply did not care what damage they did to him or to anyone else. I too wish to extend my good wishes to my hon. and learned Friend's wife and family, and to all his friends, who I know have stood by him during these terrible months. They have shared that terrible burden.
  My hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished Member for Leicester, West. His family in intertwined with the history of the city of Leicester. Before he was elected in 1970, his father was the Member for Leicester, West. The people of his constituency do not believe the lies. They are with him now, and they will be with him in the future, because they know of his unstinting service to anyone who approaches him, for whatever cause. He has vindicated himself, and all of us, in what he has said tonight.
  I remember a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who is another brave Member of the House who has suffered at the hands of a certain newspaper. I worked in the corridor where she had her office, and we Miss her in the west cloisters—especially her use of our fax machine. I recall that, just before her speech, my hon. Friend went through an agonising time wondering whether she should come before the House to tell it what she felt. Courageously, she did so—and struck a blow for every one of us in the House.
  My hon. and learned Friend, too, is a brave man in what he has done, said and endured over the past weeks and months. Every one of us should be grateful to him, because, as the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said, what has happened to my hon. and learned Friend could happen to any one of us, so we should all be aware of it.
  During the course of that terrible ordeal, I suggested to the Lord Chancellor that there should be a change in the law to provide for the protection of the innocent. The Lord Chancellor said that he would consider the idea. The Solicitor-General is here today, and I make him an offer. I came 18th in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I know that that is not very high —and there are other subjects that I wish to raise. Nevertheless, I would happily
  228
  introduce a Bill to cover the point if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would promise it a safe passage through the House.
  We should not wait for another Criminal Justice Bill. There is parliamentary time, and we should get on with the job. I foresee that many unscrupulous people in this country would be prepared to do exactly the same thing again. If it is possible to do so, I will happily give the Solicitor-General my place.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I join in the comments made so far. I am drawn 15th in the ballot. I have already tabled a Bill to provide for the innocent victims of sexual offences. It may be possible, if the Bill receives an unopposed Second Reading, for an amendment in Committee to address the point. I hope that it may be so.
  Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is there any improvement on 15th?
  The great thing about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West is that he is a great survivor. Almost alone in some cases, he has taken up great causes and won them. I listened to one of the greatest speeches that I have ever heard in the Chamber when my hon. and learned Friend spoke during the passage of the War Crimes Bill. I was very moved by what he said. He is a survivor, and I am sure that he will survive this great ordeal. I and colleagues will be with him, and the people of Leicester, West, whom he and his family have served so well over the past few decades, will also be with him.
  9.25 pm
  Sir John Farr: I support all that has been said about the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I have probably known him as long as any hon. Member of any party has. I knew, admired and respected his father, who was a distinguished Labour Member, as his son is today.
  I support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said about the law and about the need for change. I support all that has been said by Labour lawyers about the law being an ass. It is an ass, and in this case, it has been very damaging to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and to his family. It is wrong. We have the opportunity and ability to put the law right simply in this place.
  I can probably say with more licence than many others here that this will not be the first time or the last time that the law in Britain has been an ass and has been proved to be an ass. We have an opportunity to put it right tonight, and I am pleased to be associated with the tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and to his family. They must never be subject to such a threat again.
  9.27 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The price that many hon. Members pay for their service in the House is frequently high. It is not always appreciated by those who do not closely understand the enormous pressures that are put not only on Members of Parliament, but on their families.
  I have had the honour of knowing my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for many years. I knew his father and mother before him. I

  229
  could almost say that I grew up with my hon. and learned Friend, except that he is far younger than I am. That means that I know him not only as an extremely upright, tolerant and charming man, but as a man who is trusted by people in all walks of life. He is trusted not only in his constituency and in the House, but by anyone in need of succour and support. Such a person can always go to my hon. and learned Friend and find understanding, tolerance and a real effort to help alleviate whatever difficulty that person faces.
  I feel especially strongly about the ordeal that my hon. and learned Friend and his family have suffered because my own family went through a similar ordeal many years ago. People outside the House who, like myself, are not lawyers find it almost impossible to understand the byzantine intricacies of what people can and cannot do.
  One of the frightening aspects of modern political life is the tremendous power in the hands of the press. Anyone could have found themselves in my hon. and learned Friend's position. The terrifying quality of the real and long travail that my hon. and learned Friend and his family have suffered was made 100,000 times worse by the behaviour of certain members of the press. As Members of Parliament we are never allowed to say the odd word of criticism of a free press because it is somehow felt that there is an interrelationship and a need for elected Members to get their views over.
  That is true, but it is also true that those who seek to divert attention from their own open evil know that if they nominate or mention in a court case someone who is of interest to the press they will automatically receive publicity of a strength, breadth and constancy that they would not succeed in getting in any other way. Those who purport to be editors of responsible newspapers, news bulletins and television newscasts have a task to look carefully at the decisions they take and the manner in which they handle such matters.
  It is no accident that it has taken a long time to take this case to court, and it is no accident that a long time passed before my hon. and learned Friend could make a statement and clear his name. All those things were aggravated, exploited and made 100,000 times worse by those who behaved as they did for the worst possible reasons—because they were concerned with the sale of newspapers and not with what they were doing to an honourable, learned and responsible man.
  I hope that the House will seek to protect anyone who finds himself or herself in that position. I remember what it did to my family when they were named in a case many years ago and were unable to reply. I remember what that cost in personal unhappiness. It is too high a price for anyone who gives a commitment to this House as an elected Member. My hon. and learned Friend is a man of such stature that I can only pay tribute to him and give him one promise—that those of us who honour his friendship and look forward to enjoying his company for many years will not tell all Members of the House of Commons how many letters we have in our personal files signed, "Love, Greville".
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am not a lawyer, so unfortunately I cannot speak with the eloquence of someone who is familiar with the law, but I can speak as a layman who has been disgusted in recent weeks by the press coverage and the pillorying of an innocent victim mentioned in a court case. Justice should be seen to be done in a court case, but where is the justice in British law when an innocent individual who is not even a party in the case can be dragged through the court and vilified day after day by someone who remains in the gutter? There is something inherently wrong when British justice condones that state of affairs and allows it to happen and to persist.
  As hon. Members have mentioned, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is in a position to try to do something about the grave injustice inflicted upon him and his family, because he is a Member of this House. As my hon. Friends have said, there are probably thousands of other people outside who have similarly had their names defamed and their private lives wrongly dragged through the courts and into the newspapers. They are the little people. They do not have the power or the backing to get the justice that they, too, rightly and richly deserve.
  Something must be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) mentioned rape and blackmail cases. If it is possible in a British court for names not to be mentioned in such cases, why on earth cannot something be done to change the law so that innocent bystanders do not have to have their names dragged through the courts? I believe that that protection is long overdue, and this case has highlighted the fact more than many in recent years.
  It is a sad fact of life that there are, unfortunately, people who believe everything they read in the newspapers. I am afraid that by many people in this country the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has been found guilty. They do not understand what reporting on the courts in a newspaper is all about. They see an accusation in the newspaper and take it as a fact; or it is a case, of "no smoke without fire", to use that dreadfully trite expression. We all know that it is not true, but for far too many people it is true and they believe it.
  I hope that two things will come out of this debate. It has provided an opportunity for the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West for the first time to state the truth and to clear his name of these despicable accusations, so I hope that the newspapers which were ready to give as much coverage as they saw fit to the case when it was going on will tomorrow morning make sure that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West gets just as much coverage so that people are left in no shadow of a doubt that there was not one scintilla of truth in the ghastly, grubby accusations that that horrendous man was prepared to make under the cloak of privilege in a court of law.
  I should like to say one thing to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who is present tonight. I am sure that many other hon. Members would say the same. Surely there is now an overriding need not only to examine and look again at this aspect of the law and of our court proceedings, and not just to think about it but actually to do something. Something should be done quickly, though not in such a hurry that it fails to solve the problem, so that never again will anyone have to go

  231
  through the sort of nightmare that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and his poor, suffering family have had to go through. If something can be done quickly, it will not make it all worth while, but it will right a great wrong.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I rise to speak briefly—principally, like so many others, because of my high regard for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and his family, whom I know, including his father and mother. But that would not be enough, and I wish to make two further points.
  In recent years—since the televising of the House, I suppose—people have asked me, as they have asked other hon. Members, why the House of Commons behaves so badly, like a bunch of yobs. One tries to explain that it happens on the odd occasion, at Question Time, which is not a great parliamentary occasion, and that is what the media pick up. What the media, whether television or the press, never pick up is an occasion such as this, when the House of Commons is at its best in terms of the relationships between people in all parts of the House.
  I wonder to what extent this debate will be reported. If we were all shouting at one another, the media would be here. What the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has done tonight, and what other hon. Members on both sides of the House have done, although in this respect principally on the Conservative Benches, is to their credit and to the credit of Parliament.
  My second point is this. My hon. and learned. Friend the Member for Leicester, West has had his name in all the newspapers, and in one newspaper in particular. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be dealing with the question of contempt. I hope that he will not forget the newspapers, in particular. I wonder how many of them will fill their pages tomorrow or the day after in the way they have done in the past few weeks. There is a great deal of talk about freedom of the press. When I think of what went on in eastern Europe, and in fascist Europe before the war, when I was younger, I am glad that we have a free press.
  Ms. Short: We do not have a free press.
  Mr. Rees: We have a press that is free in one sense: it engages sometimes in the most scurrilous reporting and colours it up under the heading of a free press. I wonder what the press will do about this matter in the next few days. With a few exceptions, I suspect that it will do very little.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to take part briefly in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). whom I am pleased to call my hon. and learned Friend, and I entered the House on the same day, and we have been friends ever since. We worked together to form the committee for the release of Soviet Jewry, of which he was the first secretary and I the first chairman. We have not always agreed—I think that he was profoundly wrong on war crimes—but we have always respected and liked each other. I was as appalled as anyone at what happened in recent weeks. It was a terrible ordeal for my hon. and
  232
  learned Friend and for his family. I endorse everything that has been said from both sides of the House in support and admiration of him and of the courage and fortitude that he and his family have displayed.
  I should like to address my few brief remarks to something else. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will endorse what I say. It has already been mentioned that those who serve in the House have an opportunity to put wrongs right. My hon. and learned Friend was able to apply for an Adjournment debate. When it was not appropriate to have it last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made the facility available this evening. Had he not done so, another hon. Member would have obliged, and we would have had the chance to debate the matter and to make the points which have been made with such eloquence and fervour on both sides of the House.
  What would have happened if the man who had been traduced and vilified had been a village schoolmaster? What if he had been a vicar, a Methodist minister or a rabbi? He would not have had this forum. He would not have had the opportunity to command the attention of the media. Although I endorse totally what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said and have doubts about how much of the debate will be reported, nevertheless, we have this privilege and opportunity, but our constituents do not.
  Let us imagine the unspeakable agonies of horror that would have been suffered by someone in —I will not say a less exalted—a different position who had been similarly vilified. Perhaps in a moment of desperation he would have written to his local newspaper. Perhaps he would have gone to his Member of Parliament. As a result, there might have been some minor publicity, but how right my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was: people would have talked about there being no smoke without fire. Mud would have stuck. A career of public service in a quiet and restricted environment might have been ruined.
  There is something wrong with a law that allows that to happen. What we must do because of this horrific and terrible example—I use those words deliberately—is put the law right. In the high court of Parliament, we have a unique opportunity to put the law right. I look forward to a positive and enthusiastic response from my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Even though I did not draw even 15th in the ballot and can offer neither blackmail nor whitemail, I hope that there will be a firm commitment from my right hon. and learned Friend, endorsed by the Opposition parties, that the law needs to be amended, not to restrict in any way the freedom of those who are innocent until proved guilty but to prevent the vile calumny which we are discussing from being perpetrated again.
  If that happens, the sufferings of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West, of Myra and of his family, whom many of us know and admire, will not have been in vain. This case will produce something that all of us want to produce —a positive improvement in the law. We can expect no more than that, and we can certainly ask for no less.
  9.44 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I can but echo the tributes that have been paid to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). He is a man of determination and enthusiasm, whose integrity and will power have crossed party lines. I for one value the friendship that he has given me in the eight and a half years that I have been a Member of the House, despite the fact that we are in different parties and disagree on many issues.
  Mr. Beck is an evil man. Perhaps more to the point, he is a corrupt man. Several hon. and hon. and learned Members who are present, some of whom have already spoken, have, like me, had the opportunity over the years in their professional lives to meet corrupt and evil people and to examine and sometimes cross-examine them in court. I am sure that those who share my professional experience will agree that those who have trodden in the mire of corruption all too easily become corrupt to the core. They cease to recognise the difference between what is good and what is bad and between what is honourable and what is corrupt.
  They turn, like Mr. Beck, easily to more corruption and try to wheedle their way out of their own previous corruption—and that is what has happened in this case. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West was slandered with dreadful calumny by Mr. Beck. That is why it does not surprise me in the least to hear from my hon. and learned Friend about the letter that he received yesterday from Mr. Beck's erstwhile cellmate. It is common for such evidence to appear, but all too often only after a great deal of harm has been done.
  I believe in jury trial and that, however evil they are, people should be entitled to present their defence to a jury if they wish to do so. Mr. Beck would have been extremely well advised to plead guilty. He would have been well advised not to drag the name of my hon. and learned Friend through the courts and an undiscriminating press. He would have been well advised not to compel—because he did compel—his own lawyers to regard what he said about my hon. and learned Friend as part of his case. However, he chose to do so.
  I suggest to the Solicitor-General that a clear intellectual distinction can be drawn between evidence that relates to those who are parties to a trial and those who are not parties to a trial.
  I can see the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in his place across the Chamber. I know that he has shared my experience many times of being involved in what we lawyers call "cut-throat" trials. Those are trials in which the one defendant makes accusations against the other, and the other often makes even worse accusations against the one. The distinction between those cases and this is that the lawyer for the other can immediately attack the one—there is somebody there to protect the reputation of each defendant who is in the court—but in a case such as that which has affected my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West, there is no such opportunity to defend oneself. There is not even, as we have heard, any opportunity to make a realistic and meaningful statement in public, not even in the House, for to do so might affect the outcome of the trial.
  Within the past few years, we have witnessed a case in which a senior Minister made a statement during a trial in which the defendants were convicted. In consequence,
  234
  those defendants had their convictions quashed on appeal. It was a trial of the greatest public importance, involving alleged IRA terrorism. It demonstrated clearly to all Members of Parliament the dangers of making even inadvertent and mild statements about a trial while it is taking place.
  Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the Solicitor-General that a clear and simple change can be made to the law which would protect those who are not the parties to a trial—third parties outside a trial. It would in no way inhibit the right of a defendant to make his defence, however dishonest. It would in no way inhibit his right to instruct his solicitors, however egregiously. But it would prevent the press from publishing calumnies which cannot be answered, as in the Beck case, sometimes until weeks or even months after the allegation is made in the public arena of a court. I hope that we shall hear the Solicitor-General tell us shortly that such an amendment has the approval and support of the Government.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is most unusual for an Adjournment debate at this hour, at the end of which there will be no vote, to attract so many Members into the Chamber. Come to think of it, it is most unusual at any hour for so many hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen in the Chamber to remain seated when I rise to speak. If the debate had started at 10 pm when it was scheduled to start, and if the normal business of the House had continued, many more hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House would be here tonight.
  The reason why so many of us are here is the immense regard which we all have for the hon. and learned Member, our friend, for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). We have immense regard for the way in which he conducts himself not only in Leicester but in the rest of the United Kingdom and on behalf of the United Kingdom abroad. He is a famous personality. The number of people to whom he is a friend, if not because he has met them but because they know of the good works that he has done not only in Britain but throughout the world, must run into many hundreds of thousands.
  It is precisely such a person who can be brought lowest by the hateful things that may be reported about him in a court of law. The matter that has given me most cause for admiration is the way in which he has conducted himself while the horrible events have gone on and been reported in the press. That shows an inner strength which must be the result of his deep religious conviction. We all have reason to regard him, the causes that he espouses and his beliefs highly.
  We must address what can be done to stop this kind of thing happening again. It is difficult and probably impossible to allow people thus abused to make statements in the press which can only interfere with the process of justice by which someone is tried. However mean, miserable and undeserving a defendant is, he is entitled under our system to a fair trial and not to be the subject of attack, however justified, from someone who has no particular connection with the issue in the case, even if the defendant brought it on himself.
  It would be almost impossible to ban such remarks in a court of law, but there is no reason why a judge should not be empowered to say that, in an appropriate case, the name of the person maligned should not be repeated in the

  235
  press. There does not have to be a statutory ban—it can be left to the good judgment of the court. As in so many other matters, the judge should be given the discretion to tell the press that they may not publicise the name of a person, because to do so would be in contempt of court.
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is giving urgent consideration to the matter. Will he seriously consider whether that sort of amendment would be acceptable to everyone? I urge him not merely to consider the matter but, because of the strength of feeling shown here, to take action as soon as possible, so that our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West and his family will not have suffered in vain.
  9.55 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Before I became a full-time politician, I was assistant director of social services in a large authority. Wicked episodes were often brought to my attention, but nothing either then or since has been as evil as the man Beck. In this short speech, I wish to think for a moment about all the youngsters who were so badly damaged and hurt by that evil man. He well deserved the sentence he got, but to many of us five life sentences do not seem quite enough for what he did to our youngsters.
  Our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was also caused grave hurt. Having known him in this country and having travelled around Israel with him, I know that he is tough and resilient. I have a high regard for him, and I pay him tribute. I think especially of his family. When we come here, we know what we are up to, but our families, hundreds of miles away, suffer the most. We can rationalise and fight our way out, but they are often deeply hurt. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber will be thinking not only of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West but of his wife and children.
  9.58 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has asked to be associated with my unusually brief remarks.
  I am happy to count the Janner family as friends. I congratulate them all on the quiet dignity and courage that they have displayed in recent weeks while vile, vicious and baseless allegations were made by a proven liar. The fact that such allegations could be made under the cloak of privilege, and the victim has had no right of redress or to cross-examine those making them, has been a blot on our system of justice. I hope that that basic injustice can be tackled. If it can, good will come out of the traumas that our colleague has suffered and that will be for the good of potential victims. We have been through a ghastly situation, and I hope that some good can come of it.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Derek Foster: I rise to break my Trappist vow of six years to say how honoured and privileged I have been to attend and take part in this debate. We cannot always say that. Indeed, as Whips we must sometimes sit through long and tedious debates—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Many of my hon. Friends will take revenge on me for making that remark, because the
  236
  Whips hijack hon. Members into taking part in, and thereby lengthening, long and tedious debates. However, this has been a very special debate.
  I wish at the outset to thank the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) for initiating the debate. It was a generous gesture on his part. Adjournment debates are hard won and precious to Back-Bench Members. We thank him sincerely for his generous gesture in allowing this debate to take place.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Wood.]
  Mr. Foster: It is a reflection on the unusual nature of relationships in the House that a member of an opposing party can make such a generous gesture. Again, we thank him deeply. I have rarely seen the House so unanimous in warmth and affection, and especially in its understanding of the severe ordeal that one of our colleagues and his family have had to endure for many months.
  A Chief Whip is in a special position to be able to understand the many strains in the lives of colleagues that are unheard of beyond the bounds of Westminster, and often unheard of except within very small circles in this place. The strains of being a Member of Parliament are extremely great from time to time. The strains on families are also great, and their sacrifices are rarely known.
  The way in which our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has conducted himself has been a model for all of us to follow, though we hope and pray that most of us will not have to undergo that sort of ordeal. If we do, we now have a model and can say that he and his family have been through it and have borne it with great fortitude, resilience and courage—as has been said, only through their deep religious faith—and that that has been a great lesson to us all. A powerful case has been made for a change in the law. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will address himself, as only he can, to those remarks.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition would have liked to be here this evening because I know well that he has been a tremendous support to my hon. and learned Friend and his family in many small and touching ways, which I know have been deeply appreciated.
  Mr. Janner indicated assent.
  Mr. Foster: If the Opposition could facilitate a change in the law—it would be widely welcomed, as is clear from what has been said in the debate tonight—I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be willing to do what they could to assist.
  10.3 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): It is absolutely clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has done the House a service by raising this matter. I associate myself with the remarks made by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who has been through an ordeal that none of us would wish to share. I associate myself also with the remarks made by the Opposition Chief Whip about the dignity with which the hon. and learned Gentleman has borne himself in adversity.

  237
  When the House is unanimous on a subject, it is a moment to think deeply, particularly when profound principles are involved. As on so many occasions when we discuss matters in the House, we are faced with a conflict between principles, each of which is important, and with the question of how properly to resolve such a conflict. This is not the first time that this issue has reached the public domain, or will it be the last time that the House is asked to focus on the rights and duties of citizens in circumstances—from time to time inevitable circumst-ances—when the interests of one individual or one set of individuals necessarily impinge on and potentially damage the interests of others.
  We have heard speeches not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West, who initiated the debate, and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West but by the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the right hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), and the Opposition Chief Whip.
  The speeches by and in support of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West raised important questions of principle that govern three important matters: first, the need for open justice; secondly, the provision of proper opportunities for the defence in criminal proceedings to deploy the case on which the defence relies; and thirdly, the issue on which we focused most, the effect of the existence of those rights on third parties who necessarily can play no part in the proceedings and who consequently have no immediate opportunity to defend themselves or their reputations.
  The principle that justice should, as far as possible, be open is central to our system of criminal justice. It is a fundamental requirement of any democratic and just society that the process by which individuals are accused, tried and, where appropriate, punished should be open, and exposed to public scrutiny and comment at an appropriate moment, other than in wholly exceptional circumstances—for example, where on grounds of national security the court must receive evidence about matters of security or intelligence; or where, for purposes of the administration of justice, particular matters must be dealt with concerning informants. The rule that criminal proceedings are conducted in open court would be hollow unless those proceedings could be freely reported by the press and television, and the media in general. For that reason, both Houses of Parliament deliberately built into the Contempt of Court Act 1981 a robust declaration of the right to report proceedings in open court, subject to one limited exception.
  Section 4(1) of the 1981 Act provides:
  "Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceeding held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith."
  The only exception is where it appears to a court that the reporting of the proceedings before it might prejudice the
  238
  administration of justice in other proceedings imminently pending in another court, or shortly to follow thereafter. Even then, there is no power to prohibit reporting of proceedings. All that the judge may order is a postponement until the risk to the administration of justice has passed. The law does not permit the right of the press freely to report proceedings in open court to be fettered, notwithstanding that such reporting may be or would be embarrassing, damaging or inconvenient to an individual who has featured in the case. That would be a major inroad into a constitutional safeguard and would expose the courts to the risk of pressure from interested third parties.
  Mr. Cormack: Are we not dealing with something a little more serious than inconvenience? I respect what my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to say, but surely no true freedom would be properly fettered if there were an inhibition on the publication of names.
  The Solicitor-General: We are certainly dealing with matters much more serious than mere inconvenience. Perhaps I should have reordered my remarks and said "inconvenient, embarrassing or damaging"—sometimes deeply damaging. To take my hon. Friend's point, I ask the rhetorical question: is it possible to solve this grave difficulty simply by suppressing a name or ordering the press not to publish it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I hear a number of my hon. Friends saying yes, but I invite the House to reflect cautiously before interfering in what seems to be a small particular in the right of the press to make a fair and accurate report.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The press?
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, the press or television.
  Let us reflect on the matter for a moment. If one suppresses the name, one does not suppress the rest of what is reported, so it is reported that someone, or perhaps more than one person who has been defamed, has done something in the course of the case and it may be that he or she is not known to the public and is of no interest to the public. So far, I am happy to say that in the case of children —I was about to come to that exception—and in the case of rape victims, the balance that Parliament has chosen, in that it has granted exceptions in those cases, has proved to be an effective one. However, once we start to distort the operation of open justice and the consideration of the matters, we may very well, through the operation of rumour and all its insidious effects that are so damaging in libel cases—the only justification that I know for the high damages granted in such cases—inflict more damage on justice than we realise.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in cases of blackmail one refers to Mr. X. Surely in a similar case such as this one, it would be fairer to the individual involved to refer to him or her as Mr., Mrs.,Miss or Ms. X.
  The Solicitor-General: I ask my hon. Friend to reflect that, if Mr. X were a Member of the House, or Mrs. X were a member of the nobility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lady X."] If she were a Lady, she would still be referred to as Mrs. X. If the person were a member of the nobility or someone in whom the press had an interest, rumour would

  239
  start to circulate, and damage could not be avoided. I have acknowledged the great damage done to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West.
  Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  The Solicitor-General: No; otherwise, I shall not finish what I have to say. I apologise for not giving way, but I am sure that the House will understand.
  When one conceals matters, one does not necessarily quieten them. The law does not permit the right of the press freely to report proceedings in open court to be fettered, notwithstanding that such reporting would be inconvenient, embarrassing or damaging to some individual who has featured in the case. That would be a major inroad into a constitutional safeguard and would expose the courts to the risk of pressure from interested third parties.
  Anyone who has prosecuted in the criminal courts—I see a number of such hon. Members here —will know that, in case after case, it is necessary to bring in damaging things about third parties. They may be co-accused who have never been tried and are entitled to the presumption of innocence, or they may be people against whom the defendant has a grudge of any nature. Are all those names to be kept from the press? Is it always to be Mr. X or Mrs. X? I suggest—I put it no higher, and we shall resolve
  nothing tonight —that we should think very carefully indeed.
  Parliament, which has considered the matter carefully, has decreed that the only exceptions should be children involved as victims and the victims of rape. The law of contempt is a doctrine of wide scope which manifests itself in a variety of types of contempt. Their common feature —if I can capture the interest of hon. Members—is that they seek to ensure the efficacy and integrity of the judicial process, which is of concern to us all, so that justice may be administered to all without interference from any quarter.
  Proceedings for contempt of court are the means by which obedience to orders of the court and adherence to undertakings are ensured. Those minded to take reprisals against witnesses on account of the evidence that they have given can also be punished for contempt. Those who disrupt proceedings or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice by scandalising the judiciary are also liable to be dealt with for contempt of court. The media are also required, when reporting matters which are relevant to imminent legal proceedings, to ensure that their reports do not give rise to any substantial risk of prejudice.
  Ms. Short: The mood of the House has changed since the Solicitor-General started speaking, and a mood of exasperation is now spreading widely. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman anything positive to say to us, or will the rest of his speech simply seek to justify the status quo and say no to everything that has been put before him tonight?
  The Solicitor-General: It sounds as though the hon. Lady has made up her mind.
  Ms. Short: I think that we should look at the question.
  The Solicitor-General: What I am putting before the House are serious considerations about the balance between the rights of individuals, which may be damaged
  240
  in the course of a case but where the record can subsequently be put straight, the rights of those who are before the courts, accused, to deploy their defence, and the rights of the public at large to scrutinise that process.
  I ask the House to be careful when it has one of its own Members in its charge. We are right to sympathise with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester West.
  Mr. Cecil Franks: It is the principle that matters.
  The Solicitor-General: Exactly. My hon. Friend is entirely right: it is the principle that matters, and the ultimate principle is that there should be justice and that justice should be seen to be done.
  Mr. Franks: There are many lawyers in the House, including myself, and we take a completely different view. I speak not as a lawyer but as a politician. It is just not good enough if the House does nothing. I have the greatest sympathy for hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), but there is a principle involved and it is about time that my right hon. and learned Friend stopped speaking as a lawyer and started acting as a politician.
  The Solicitor-General: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have had many pleasant discussions with him, but I must say to him and to the House in all firmness that to ask us to talk about justice as politicians is to go down a very dangerous road. When we consider justice, we stand back as politicians and invite independent courts and wholly independent juries to consider hotly contested matters.
  Right hon. and hon. Members are failing to remember in how many criminal trials it happens, often necessarily, that allegations are made by the prosecution or defence which are damaging to persons who are not immediately before the court.
  Mr. Franks: Let us deal with that point.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend says that we ought to deal with that point. The suggestion before the House is that, in such cases, it would be right and proper not to publish the names of the persons involved. The House has not focused its mind yet on whether any name should be published, or whether only some names should or should not be published.
  Ms. Short: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not even consider that point.
  The Solicitor-General: I ask the hon. Lady to relax for a moment. I am not saying that the country should not consider the matter. It will undoubtedly be one for public debate, and rightly so. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West and the ordeal suffered by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West will make it a matter, rightly, for public debate. Nevertheless —
  Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradfords, South)rose —
  Mr. Ashby rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the Solicitor-General does not want to give way.
  The Solicitor-General: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West, who initiated the debate.
  Mr. Ashby: I appreciate that one must approach the matter with considerable caution, and that we cannot go at it in a bull-at-a-gate fashion. It is important to hear the arguments on both sides, and to consider them carefully. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for replying to the debate in the way that he is doing. I accept everything that has been said so far, but is it really necessary for the persons in question to be the subject of media coverage? I cannot see how it aids justice one iota for that to happen.
  The Solicitor-General: What is reasonable and what the law should forbid are not necessarily the same. We have a very wide press in this country, and we count that as one of our freedoms. However, it embraces a whole spectrum —from a deeply responsible press that is extremely careful in what it publishes and which tries to balance one thing with another, to an element that many people regard, perhaps rightly, as frequently scurrilous or simply aimed at making a profit. I suggest, however, that that is part of a free society. Although it has disadvantages, it is a great deal better than the kind of society in which there is no free press, or in which the press is gagged by more and more complex and frequently unworkable rules.
  I must move on, because there are one or two other points and safeguards that I want to mention. As I said, safeguards apply in the case of children and of rape victims, and they seem to have worked well. The judge also has the power, where the reporting of one case may affect the interests of justice in a subsequent case, to postpone the reporting of the earlier case.
  Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend, as I believe that I have done so once already and I have only a little time left.
  Professional safeguards apply to those who appear for the prosecution and the defence. The Bar code of conduct requires that those who appear should use their powers as responsibly as the interests of justice may reasonably allow. Paragraph 610 of the Bar code provides, first:
  "Counsel must not make statements or ask questions which are merely scandalous or intended or calculated only to vilify insult or annoy either a witness or some other person; counsel must if possible avoid the naming in open Court of third parties whose characters would thereby be impugned; counsel must not suggest that a witness or other person is guilty of crime, fraud or misconduct or attribute to another person the crime or conduct of which his lay client is accused"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "What about this case?"]—
  "unless such allegations go to a matter in issue (including the credibility of the witness) which is material to his lay client's case and which appear to him to be supported by reasonable grounds."
  I hear hon. Members saying, "What about this case?" I am on common ground when I remind the House that this case was immensely serious. If someone is to be tried for matters as serious as those for which Mr. Beck was
  242
  tried and to receive the condign punishment that Mr. Beck received, it is essential that he should have a fair trial and that he should be given every opportunity to deploy his defence.
  Hon. Members are saying, "We all agree, but what about the hon. and learned Member for Leicester. West?" I must remind the House of another important principle. If I may say so, I acquit the hon. and learned Gentleman of the misguided approach that some hon. Members are taking. He has deported himself with great dignity. That is the way in which we should deport ourselves. He was not on trial. His opportunity to answer necessarily had to be deferred until the trial was over, and he has now had an opportunity to be heard. [Interruption.] I hear the point that other people do not have the same privilege as hon. Members.
  The suggestion is not that we should lift the laws of libel, which would be one other possible step to take, because if we were to do so witnesses would be inhibited and the opportunity for justice would be damaged.
  Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  The Solicitor-General: No, I am sorry, but I must conclude.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West is not on trial. He has had an opportunity to make his point, and I wish to end with one important point. As a result of a number of miscarriages, we are scrutinising our system of justice. I hope that the House will never forget that no one is guilty of an offence unless they have been duly tried and convicted and that everyone is entitled to the same presumption of innocence.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Tell that to the press.
  The Solicitor-General: I do tell that to the press.
  If I may speak for the Law Officers of the Crown, we are scrupulous in bearing that vital principle in mind. We are right to be scrupulous to maintain our system of open justice, to require that people be tried for charges the purport of which is known, and in courts which are open to the public and to the press and can be fully and fairly reported. Despite the undoubted hardship, not only to the famous such as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and other hon. Members, but to those who are known only to their families—I know from correspondence that many ordinary people suffer hardship because of what is said and done in court cases—I suggest to the House that we interfere with this at our peril, and at peril to our liberties and system of open justice. I commend that principle most sincerely to the House.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour,MR SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.