House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Feb 1990

Mr. Waddington : The hon. Gentleman's remarks were entirely uncalled for. He ignored entirely that Devon and Cornwall police have already carried out a detailed investigation into the matter ; he ignored entirely that as a result of that investigation the case was taken to the Court of Appeal ; and he ignored entirely that the Court of Appeal carried out the most exhaustive inquiry into the confessions made by the Six and into the forensic evidence.

Sports Grounds (Public Order)

9. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the Taylor report, he will introduce legislation as soon as possible to create new public order offences at sports grounds ; and if he will make a statement.

Column 1059

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : We are looking positively and quickly at the report's recommendations for new offences.

Mr. Colvin : Does my hon. Friend accept that, as the Taylor report indicated, existing legislation is insufficient to deal with trouble and hooliganism at sporting events? Will he therefore support the introduction of three new offences to deal with, first, the throwing of missiles, secondly, the chanting of obscene and racist abuse, and thirdly, the invasion of pitches without good reason? Are not those reforms particularly important in view of the Government's second thoughts on the ID card scheme?

Mr. Lloyd : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement, but before a final decision is made we need to discuss the

recommendations of the report with the police and the Crown prosecution service to ensure that they are enforceable and that they add effectively to the sanctions already available.

Mr. Randall : Notwithstanding that response, is the Minister aware that there is concern that the noises coming from the Government on the Taylor report have been almost entirely limited to the question of all- seater stadiums? When will the Minister tell the country what specific action the Government intend to take in response to Taylor? Why is the Minister so slow off the mark in responding to this urgent matter?

Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken. We were so quick off the mark that he obviously missed it. We accepted all the safety recommendations in the Taylor report and we are considering speedily and carefully the three recommendations for criminal legislation, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : When my hon. Friend considers the proposals for new legislation, will he bear in mind that many sporting events in this country take place not at sports grounds but throughout the countryside? At the moment, people innocently pursuing their lawful pastimes are inadequately protected from those who seek to disrupt them. Will my hon. Friend please bear that strongly in mind when considering new legislation?

Mr. Lloyd : I will bear those points very much in mind. As my hon. Friend said, it is necessary to consider the recommendations very carefully.

Electronic Tagging

10. Mr. Allen : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the experiment in tagging in Nottingham.

Mr. John Patten : The trial of electronic monitoring in Nottingham has run its full course and ended, as planned, on time. The results will be fully evaluated together with results from the other two trial areas, where the experiments continue.

Mr. Allen : Will the Minister bear in mind the experience of Mr. Richard Hart, who lives in Nottingham and who was the first person in Britain to be tagged? His tag apparently indicated that he was absconding. The police went to his home, broke in and found him in bed with his wife, who was particularly upset. He was at home

Column 1060

all the time. Before he went back to prison, his tag malfunctioned 15 times. Because he was unable to leave the house, the Departments of Social Security and of Employment said that he was not available for work, so he got no benefit. Does the Minister agree with the National Association of Probation Officers that the tagging scheme has been a fiasco and should not be extended elsewhere?

Mr. Patten : Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He does not know what has been going on in his own back yard in Nottingham. We have seen in Nottingham a successful experiment which has run its full course and which shows how precise electronic monitoring is in revealing when there has been even the smallest breach of conditions. The hon. Gentleman talked about the National Association of Probation Officers. Does he get up and criticise the association every time a probation officer fails to control or get back to a bail hostel someone who should have been back on time? Of course he does not. The tagging scheme is in operation in 21 states in the United States of America where it is widely welcome and is a great success.

Mr. Lawrence : As the Nottingham scheme is one of three in operation, is not it true that electronic tagging has shown that it effectively picks up violations as soon as they occur, which the ordinary system does not do? Has my hon. Friend yet been able to form a view about the even newer development of tracking tagging?

Mr. Patten : My hon. and learned Friend is right in the first part of his question. Indeed, tracking tagging is full of possibilities for future use. Any right hon. or hon. Member who doubts the efficacy of electronic monitoring should talk to the people who have been subject successfully to electronic monitoring rather than being on remand in prison. Electronic tagging has led in some cases to people getting lesser, non-custodial sentences than they might otherwise have received.

Mr. Hattersley : If tagging in Nottingham has been such a great success, why did the clerk to the Nottingham justices say on behalf of the magistrates that it had been a complete failure? Now that the Minister of State has had his moment of publicity, should not he drop the whole daft idea?

Mr. Patten : First, the right hon. Gentleman is reporting alleged remarks by the clerk from the Nottingham justices which the clerk certainly did not make. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman characteristically has not applied his mind to how to deal with offenders on remand or being punished in the community in ways other than the traditional way. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has thought seriously about criminal justice issues for a decade. He is politically and intellectually out to lunch on such issues.

Mr. Maclennan : If the Minister is prepared to announce today his complete conviction in the efficacy of the scheme, why has he bothered with experimentation?

Mr. Patten : We have not drawn our conclusions to a satisfactory end because we have three experiments. The hon. Gentleman is highly intelligent. He knows that when experiments are conducted it is necessary to wait until they are over before they are evaluated.

Column 1061

Mr. Alexander : Does the Minister agree that any failures are failures of the defendants rather than the system? Is not the advantage of the system that the authorities know immediately the bail condition is broken? Is not it significantly cheaper to have tagging than to keep defendants expensively in prison?

Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows, as I know, that unfortunately when people who are remanded on bail go into the community, they often breach their conditions, but we hear nothing about that from the Opposition.

Mr. Allen : In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

West Midlands Police

11. Mr. Flannery : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has anything to add to his answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 304, concerning DS Morton.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : No, Sir. The answers that I gave on 25 January and 1 February referred only to those officers who conducted interviews with those later convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. I stated that specifically in my original reply.

Mr. Flannery : Why is the Minister hiding from the truth? This is the third time he has been questioned on the matter. Sergeant Brian Morton was expelled from the police force and gaoled because he beat up a prisoner to try to extract a confession. The reality is that he was in Queen's road police station in Birmingham during the whole time that the Birmingham Six were being brutally beaten up to extort confessions from them. Why does not the Minister face that and tell us the truth?

Mr. Lloyd : I said in an earlier written answer that Detective Sergeant Morton had been in prison for an offence. I said in the latter answer, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that Detective Sergeant Morton had nothing to do with the interviews of the Birmingham Six. He photographed one of them--Hill--at one point, but many officers had jobs at the periphery of the investigation, in which they were not involved. Morton was one of them and unless the hon. Gentleman has evidence otherwise it is deeply irresponsible to imply that Detective Sergeant Morton had such involvement.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Malcolm Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the German Defence Minister and one with the National Pensioners Convention.

Column 1062

Mr. Bruce : Does the Prime Minister accept that there is growing anger and dismay in Scotland at the way in which the Scottish steel industry is being run down by British Steel? Does she accept that, on the ground of competition alone, the time is right for British Steel's monopoly to be ended and for an independent steel industry to be established, based in Scotland? Would not that best serve the interests of competition and of the Scottish steel industry? Has not the Secretary of State for Scotland already suggested that that may be a course to be considered? My party has been advocating it for the past two or three years and it has growing support within Scotland.

The Prime Minister : The best guarantee of a successful steel industry has been privatisation. Before it was privatised, it was losing about £3 million a day ; it is now making more than £500 million profit a year. On Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman knows that the British Steel prospectus stated that, subject to market conditions, there would continue to be a need for production at Ravenscraig until 1994. The chairman of British Steel has recently reaffirmed that. British Steel also gave the assurance that if it did not need Ravenscraig at some future date it would be prepared to sell it to another buyer. That assurance stands and I wish Ravenscraig well.

Q2. Mr. Tim Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 February 1990.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the fourth quarter of last year exports rose by no less than 23 per cent. compared with the same period in 1988? Given the additional good news that Japanese investors are to create 400 new jobs in Barnsley and that German investors are to create 300 new jobs in Birmingham, is not there every reason to be optimistic about the prospects of British manufacturing?

The Prime Minister : I agree that British manufacturing industry can take justifiable pride in its success. Its production is at an all-time record this year and its investment is at an all-time record over and above the previous record set the year before. Growth has been good. Growth has been strongest in the highest technology industries. Production of electronic goods has increased by 50 per cent. since 1978, aerospace production has doubled and the computer industry has grown faster than that in any other country except Japan. That success has come about under Conservative economic policies. Japan and Germany know that and are anxious to put more investment here.

Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister ready to recognise that her high mortgage rate policies and her poll tax are bound to push up the rate of inflation?

The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, our top priority is to get inflation down. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the best way to do that in the longer term must be to make the price of money more expensive. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, I am very surprised.

Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister talks about combating inflation, but she is causing it. Is not it

Column 1063

absolutely clear that because of high interest rates, high mortgage rates and high poll tax levels, the level of inflation now faced by the British people is mainly made in Downing street?

The Prime Minister : No. The right hon. Gentleman rightly grumbles about an inflation level of 7.7 per cent., but under the Labour Government it was 26.7 per cent.--an all-time high this century. Our record is far, far better than anything that the Labour party would ever produce.

Mr. Kinnock : This time last year, when inflation was at 7.8 per cent., the Prime Minister said that it was "proceeding towards zero". Now it is 7.7 per cent. Is that what she calls "proceeding"?

The Prime Minister : It is because we have growth that is faster than we had thought that it is taking longer to turn round. Nevertheless, we have a record number of home owners and a high level of mortgage payers, 99 per cent. of whom are managing to pay their mortgages and know the fundamental truth that those who put their money in bricks and mortar have, in the longer run, done better than those who put their savings in building societies.

Q3. Mr. Neil Hamilton : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton : Has my right hon. Friend seen the new policy platform adopted by the Communist party of the Soviet Union, which extols the virtues of markets, stresses the importance of competition, and calls for the scrapping of indiscriminate subsidies and for the selling of shares in state enterprises, all of which are opposed by the Labour party-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not certain that what goes on in the Soviet Union is the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Hamilton : I am coming to the point of my question, Mr. Speaker. Is not it ironic that the Government of the Soviet Union, who are adopting the policies of Her Majesty's Government, are edging that country towards a free enterprise future, which is opposed by Labour Members whose minds are still sunk in the Socialist attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s?

The Prime Minister : As usual, my hon. Friend makes his point effectively. Those who have lived under Socialism know that it produces only poverty and oppression and they turn away from that to Conservative policies, as they are doing in eastern Europe.

Mr. Turner : Is the Prime Minister aware that for Wolverhampton to get down to the poll tax level projected by the Government it would need to cut £28 million from its spending, which is equivalent to the whole of our social services budget and almost the whole of our leisure services budget? Will she tell the people of Wolverhampton why they have to pay an additional surcharge of £47, which has nothing to do with their services but has been imposed by her Government? The people of Wolverhampton want to know, and they want that surcharge taken away.

The Prime Minister : If the local authority is finding it difficult to reduce its spending by £28 million, does it not

Column 1064

realise--I doubt whether it does--that it is doing the worst possible thing by taking that money out of the pockets of its residents because that is what it is doing if it is setting a community charge that is higher than it need be?

Q4. Mr. Fishburn : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fishburn : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention, once the community charge is in place, to ensure that private landlords who currently charge their tenants rent and rates combined should lower their charges by the amount of the rates and not just pocket the difference?

The Prime Minister : Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I hope that private landlords will lower their charges when they know that they do not have to pay rates and thus act in accordance with the terms of their tenancy agreements. Various remedies are available for tenants whose landlords do not agree to such a reduction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is setting those remedies out in a leaflet which will be widely available.

Mr. Winnick : Can the Prime Minister explain why, despite all the money and propaganda spent on it, the poll tax is the most detested and hated tax introduced for centuries? If she disputes what I say, could we have a referendum on the poll tax?

The Prime Minister : First, a rating revaluation of domestic properties, which some of us have been through before, would have been infinitely more detested than the community charge. The community charge will have more generous rebates than the rate rebate system ever gave and also a transitional relief scheme which does not depend on means testing. I understand why the Opposition do not like the community charge. It is because it will reveal that the highest spending councils are Labour councils. Labour has an even worse remedy in the roof tax, which would put a local tax on capital values regardless of whether the person living in the house owned it and would add to it a test of income tax.

Q5. Mr. Colin Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shepherd : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom agriculture industry grows some 75 per cent. of our indigenous foodstuffs and at the same time contributes, through exports, some £1,600 million to the balance of payments and the balance of trade? Will she recognise that, and help to sustain the confidence of that vibrant industry by maintaining pressure on the European Community to dismantle the green pound?

The Prime Minister : I gladly respond to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the farmers who have put up production greatly and have also put up productivity. They have saved us a great deal on the balance of payments. We are very

Column 1065

much aware of the difficulties caused by the green pound. We are seeking a substantial devaluation of the green pound in the current price negotiations.

Mr. Skinner : Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility suggested by some of her Back Benchers of reducing the poll tax by taking out of it education and perhaps teachers' salaries, fire services, the police or a combination of any of the three? Will she rule that out before the next election?

The Prime Minister : The revenue support grant already pays for a substantial part of education, teachers' salaries, polytechnics and, indeed, every part of education. The business rate already pays for another substantial part of education. Therefore, if we were to take education out and run it centrally--which I believe would be totally wrong. It is much better to do as we are doing and to take education away from the local authorities and put it out to the people so that they can run it themselves. That is true devolution. If education were taken out, a substantial part of the revenue support grant would have to come out with it, as well as some of the business rate.

Q6. Mr. Dover : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dover : What encouragement can my right hon. Friend give to the people of Chorley who sensibly voted in the Conservative-controlled Chorley borough council, which is spending exactly in line with Government spending forecasts, but faces sky high community charges because of the high spending of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council?

The Prime Minister : I hear what my hon. Friend says about Lancashire. There is no justification for extravagance on the part of any authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it perfectly clear that where there is excessive spending he will not hesitate to charge-cap the authority.

Mr. Fraser : If the Prime Minister is right to suggest that the poll tax is another Government success, will she confirm that there will not be any poll tax capping between now and the end of March?

The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman is aware, not all authorities have set their budgets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider the criteria for charge-capping when all the budgets have been

Column 1066

set. The matter will have to be considered carefully for each authority. Naturally, that will take time and my right hon. Friend will do it as soon as he can.

Q7. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bowis : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Stalinist regime in Europe has found a new role model and has renamed itself the Albanian Labour party? Will my right hon. Friend take time to send a message of support to the people of Albania in the hope that, some day, they will be relieved of the burden of Socialism in the same way as the people of this country?

The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point very well. I hope that the Albanian Labour party will be unable to inflict upon the people of its country the sort of damage that Socialist parties here inflicted upon ours.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Q8. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions she has had with (a) Chancellor Kohl and (b) other European Community state leaders concerning the location of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The Prime Minister : The Government believe that London is the natural choice for the home of the bank. I have made that clear to all my Community colleagues.

Dr. Godman : Despite the undoubted banking expertise and skills to be found in the United Kingdom, in both London and Edinburgh, it is extremely unlikely that the bank will be sited in London. Should not the Government show some magnanimity and argue the case for the bank to be sited in an eastern European capital such as Prague?

Mr. Tony Banks : Or Newham.

The Prime Minister : No, Mr. Speaker. London is the largest centre for international banking in Europe and it houses more international banks than any other major European nation. Foreign banks enjoy more than 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international business and 520 foreign banks are represented in London. We have the largest equity market in Europe. I could go on to give many, many qualifications and justifications as to why the bank should be sited in London. London is quite the best position for that particular bank.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page