House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Apr 1990

Column 1332

taken the SDLP into their confidence, but Her Majesty's Government had had no discussions with Unionists beforehand, although anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland would not have had to have discussions with Unionist Members to know the views of the people of Northern Ireland.

The way in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement is viewed by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland in April 1990 is no more favourable than it was on 15 November 1985. There is a sense of disbelief that we could confer that place of special privilege on the Government of the Irish Republic, whose constitution still lays claim to Northern Ireland ; a sense of disbelief that we should ask another Government to represent some of Her Majesty's subjects when those subjects have the right to elect their own Members.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Irish Government are enabled to represent the nationalist community in the north implies that Her Majesty's Government do not seem to feel able sufficiently to represent the interests of those citizens of the United Kingdom in a way that is fair and even-handed in relation to other United Kingdom citizens?

Mr. Gow : When dealing with any of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government have a duty to take account of the interests of all of the people in each of those four countries. For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland must ensure that, in the administration of Scotland, nationalists, socialists, liberals and those who, like myself, believe in the Union are all governed under a fair and just law. He must ensure that each citizen, whatever his or her political or religious beliefs, shall be treated in the same way under a just law.

It is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to safeguard and protect nationalists--and republicans--in Northern Ireland. I am wholly opposed at all times, and in all circumstances, to any discrimination in Northern Ireland on the ground that a citizen is a Roman Catholic, a nationalist or a republican. I shall make only one caveat : that nationalists in Northern Ireland, whom I acknowledge, honour and respect, must accept their responsibility to behave as responsible citizens, obeying the law at all times. That means doing their utmost to defeat terrorism. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) that the Government in every part of the kingdom must protect all their citizens, whatever their views, under a just law.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement did not get off to a happy start, because it was in two versions--the Irish text and the United Kingdom text. The Irish text did not refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not very surprising, in view of recent judgments from the Supreme Court, and in view of articles 2 and 3. It was not a happy start to a solemn treaty and agreement when the texts did not coincide.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the robust reply that he gave to the previous debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The words that fell from his lips were carefully fashioned--and were approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His description of the judgments of the Supreme Court was "baffling and deplorable", and I agree entirely with that choice of words.

Column 1333

However, my hon. Friend's efforts, and those of the Government, to secure much better--indeed, proper--extradition arrangements will be wished godspeed by every hon. Member. It is a terrible commentary on the evils of terrorism that on a supposedly friendly country, with whose Government we have entered into a treaty, should be conferred a special provision which means that that country above all others--a country that has suffered from terrorism--is now perceived, with justification, to be a safe haven for terrorists.

In the cases of Finucane and Clarke, we are referring not to suspected terrorists but to people who were convicted of grave terrorist crimes. During their escape from the Maze prison, further grave crimes were committed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that it is not impossible that those two, whose extradition was refused, will now engage in further terrorist activity, and that is greatly to be deplored.

No one who believes that the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will fail to bring to the Province that peace, stability and reconciliation that we all want to see, and no one who is critical of the agreement, should criticise it without offering an alternative. Clearly the agreement can be changed or amended at any time with the consent of both parties. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State makes an agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, however solemn its terms--whether it is registered with the Comptroller of the Household, the United Nations, Mr. Delors or anyone who is now in fashion--it can be altered at the request of the two parties who made it.

I have submitted to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to the then Foreign Secretary--now Lord President of the Council--the text of a revised Anglo-Irish Agreement. When my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland arrived at Stormont or Hillsborough, he also was a beneficiary--I am not sure whether he regarded it in those terms--as I sent him the text of my alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That alternative could have been fashioned with the consent of the two contracting Governments. The revised agreement did not give the Republic the right to advance views and proposals about how one part of the kingdom was governed--or, as article 4 says, the right to put forward proposals on behalf of nationalists as to what form of devolution there should be. It envisaged something that had been fashioned earlier by the Conservative and Unionist party.

Shortly after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative party on 11 February 1975, she appointed as shadow Secretary of State her friend and mine Airey Neave, who held the post from February 1975 until he was assassinated in the precincts of this House on 30 March 1979. Just before he was assassinated, the shadow Cabinet had agreed--you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not be surprised to learn that it had done so without much discussion--the Conservative party's policies for Northern Ireland. The manifesto stated :

"In the absence of devolved Government, we shall seek to set up a regional council or councils with widely devolved powers over local matters."

I am still waiting for Ministers to implement the policy that had been fashioned by Airey Neave with the consent

Column 1334

and concurrence of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and, if I am allowed to say this without any presumption, with the concurrence of the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

We are still awaiting the implementation of that policy. The conclusion that Airey Neave had reached in his four years of stewardship as shadow Secretary of State was that the least dangerous and most hopeful way forward was to treat Northern Ireland as closely as possible to the way that we treat the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not mean identical treatment, because England, Wales and Scotland are governed differently, but it recognised the most important truth that the House can learn--that the most important factor in prolonging terrorism in Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province. Ministers have not yet understood that truth.

The uncertainty about Ulster's constitutional future was not diminished but increased by the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The certainty about Ulster's constitutional future has not been increased by the two judgments in the Supreme Court in Dublin last month ; it is the uncertainty that has been increased by those judgments.

It is perfectly possible, despite the commitment in article 4, for Ministers to confer modest additional powers on the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. Dublin would not like us doing so, but we do not need its consent. Nothing prevents my right hon. Friend the Minister of State from trying to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland with some of the powers enjoyed by regional councils in Scotland and county councils in England and Wales. Nothing stops him bringing to an end the absurdity that we legislate for 1.5 million of the Queen's subjects in Northern Ireland by unamendable Order in Council, which we would not accept for our constituents. Sometimes, the policy that I am advocating is described as integration. It could perfectly properly be described as administrative devolution. The time will come when Ministers realise that the surest protection for the minority and the greatest guarantee of stability in Northern Ireland is to adopt that policy, of which the late Airey Neave was the principal architect. The sooner we do so, the greater will be the prospect of peace, stability and reconciliation which all decent men want to see.

10.43 am

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he has pursued and promoted his views on the subject since his resignation, which I much respected, from the Government. In diverging from my hon. Friend, as I will, he knows that I have every respect for his parliamentary and political manners. Once again, he clearly set out his views. I observed that he dwelt a little more on the past of the agreement. The debate was advertised as being about the future of the agreement, but I read from one to the other.

Mr. William Ross : Has it a future?

Mr. Cope : Perhaps that was the point that my hon. Friend was making.

It is my task to make it clear that the Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to the principles that underline it and are embodied in it. The

Column 1335

agreement was intended to address how the legitimate interests of the Irish Government in matters within Northern Ireland, particularly regarding the minority community, could be acknowledged without diluting United Kingdom sovereignty or the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. In his closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne demonstrated the sovereignty of Parliament and the Government's advice to it on various matters.

More important, article 1 of the agreement provides a formal acknowledgement by both Governments of the factual status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom ; that that status would be changed only if and when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished it ; and that if that should occur, both Governments would facilitate it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said in the House on 14 March in replying to an Adjournment debate, that firm bedrock has not been shaken by the McGimpsey judgment.

The agreement provides a structure in which views and proposals can be put forward by the Irish Government, in particular in the absence of a devolved Government, and a framework in which the differences that inevitably arise between us from time to time can be resolved in a constructive and co- operative fashion, with the minimum, although not always with the absence, of acrimony. Such differences are inevitable and it is better to try to resolve them through such a framework.

I hope that all hon. Members will agree that a close relationship with the Irish Republic, as provided by the agreement, is an essential component of our efforts to ensure that terrorism does not succeed in Northern Ireland. This morning's earlier discussion on extradition emphasised that point.

The conference, supported by the secretariat, has provided the forum in which Ministers and senior officials on both sides can maintain close and frequent contact. That has inevitably given each side a greater awareness of the political and other realities against which the other side has to operate and has helped to reduce the risk of misunderstandings arising over particular incidents and has increased the possibility that problems will be resolved in a constructive and co-operative spirit. It has enabled each side to take decisions within its jurisdiction with greater knowledge and awareness of the likely impact on and reactions of the other side. That does not mean that we do not disagree with out Irish colleagues on some issues, but it does mean that we have a way of trying to resolve them.

The agreement has been, and continues to be, widely welcomed internationally, where it has been recognised as making a very positive contribution to addressing the fundamental problems of Northern Ireland.

My hon. Friend has criticised the agreement again today, because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. However, we must recognise that, in Northern Ireland there are two distinct communities and that in that sense, it is not like any other part of the United Kingdom. The two communities have different aspirations, traditions and allegiances. There is, regrettably, as the House knows all too well, a history of animosity and conflict between them. The agreement provides a means of giving recognition to the identities of the two communities in a framework that ensures that the

Column 1336

wishes of a majority shall prevail. Their wishes are, of course, that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Ross : The Minister is now talking about the interests of the majority. Does he remember that, a moment ago, he was talking about the input of the Government of the Irish Republic? Will he, on behalf of the Government, now give the House an assurance that, on all future occasions when Ministers happen to be speaking to the Government of the Irish Republic, they will keep firmly in the forefront of their mind the fact that the Government of the Irish Republic have been instructed by their own Supreme Court that at every opportunity they must pursue the objective of a united Ireland and use whatever constitutional or other means are available at the time?

Mr. Cope : In seeking to balance the interests of the majority and those of the minority on different occasions, which it is our responsibility to do, we try to keep in mind all relevant considerations, including the views of the Irish Government and the factors that may have led them to present those views to us. For the avoidance of doubt, I should just add that it is my wish also that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom. I hope that it does, but it is the wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland rather than my own wish which matters and should be paramount, as the agreement recognises.

In addition to enshrining the principle of consent as the basis for determining the future of Northern Ireland, the agreement has provided a valuable forum in which cross-border co-operation in security and other matters can be pursued. There is absolutely no doubt that close co- operation in security is essential to our efforts to defeat terrorism. Nor is there any doubt that there have been improvements since the signing of the agreement, and there is now a much more effective level of co-operation between the two police forces. However, there is no room for complacency and I do not say that all is perfect. There remains much work to be done at the political level to ensure that security co-operation is as effective as it can be. The advantage of the agreement is that it provides us with the mechanism through which the two Governments' shared interest in bringing terrorism to an end can be advanced.

The British Government have always made it clear, of course, that they do not regard the agreement as a panacea which provides the solution to all Northern Ireland's problems. Although, as I have said, it provides a valuable framework in which relations between the two Governments on Northern Ireland matters can be conducted, we do not regard it as immutable or as incapable of improvement.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Does the Minister agree that, apart from the co-operation between Ministers in the Irish Republic and in the United Kingdom, which I fully endorse, there is a strong case for continuing co-operation, now that it has started, between Members of Paliament in the Republic and those in this country? Like the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I participated in the first session of the new British parliamentary body. I look on that as a welcome initiative. Does the Minister agree?

Column 1337

Mr. Cope : It is a helpful development. A review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Conference--

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : I appreciate that the Minister has a full speech there in justification of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He has stated that the agreement has provided great benefits to the people of the United Kingdom--forgetting the Irish Republic at present. We had good relations with Dublin over security and there was a degree of co-operation. If anything, it has worsened since the signing of the agreement. Will the Minister now list the benefits that have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of signing the agreement?

Mr. Cope : I have already given my opinion, which is that benefits have accrued in security co-operation, and I shall talk about some of the other ways in which I believe benefits have accrued and in which co- operation has improved.

A review of the working of the intergovernmental conference, as prescribed under article 11 of the agreement, was completed in May last year. The communique recording the outcome of that review and a document setting out developments that have taken place since the signing of the agreement are available in the Library of the House. The two Governments reaffirmed, in paragraph 27 of the review communique , the fundamental objectives of the agreement in promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, diminishing the divisions between the two traditions, creating a new climate of friendship and co-operation between them and improving co-operation in combating terrorism.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cope : No, as I have given way several times.

The two Governments concluded at that stage that the conference had proved its value and that no fundamental change was necessary in its role. They also agreed that if in future it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, they would be ready in principle to consider such changes. That is relevant to one of the fundamental provisions of the agreement, article 4, to which hon. Members have already referred, which refers to the British Government's policy--which has the support of the Irish Government, too--that responsibility in respect of certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be devolved within Northern Ireland on a basis that would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community.

It remains the Government's view that it is desirable for locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland to have a greater say in the decisions that affect the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

Column 1338

Mr. Barry Porter : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cope : No, as I have given way several times.

In order for this to happen, it is essential for dialogue to take place between the Northern Ireland political parties and with the British Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, as the House knows, been having a series of meetings with Northern Ireland political leaders to explore what scope there is for making progress.

The judgment of the Irish Supreme Court in the McGimpsey case should not be allowed to block the path to political progress in Northern Ireland. We are offering talks on political progress without preconditions. Unionists may, therefore, legitimately seek change in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution as part of their list of objectives to be achieved from any talks. I draw their attention to a speech made by an Irish Minister in the debate in the Irish Senate on the McGimpsey judgment, in which he did not say that the Irish would never change their constitution, but said that they did not want to change it in a vacuum and that they would be prepared to examine and review the articles in the context of new political arrangements that might emerge in these islands. Few would doubt that the amendment of articles 2 and 3 of that constitution would have a most important and positive effect on the atmosphere within Northern Ireland and on relations between the Republic and the United Kingdom.

There can be differing views about the form and extent of any devolution of powers, but there appears to be common recognition that devolution is the basis on which widespread acceptance is most likely to be achieved and that both sides of the community must play a proper role in any future institutions of government in Northern Ireland. The achievement of devolution on a basis that will secure widespread acceptance is a central part of the agenda set by the agreement. That does not mean devolution within the agreement, but it does mean that we look to the Irish Government to support our efforts to facilitate the process. As any political progress within Northern Ireland will have implications for relations with the Republic of Ireland, we have kept in close touch with the Irish Government about ways in which progress might be achieved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet his Irish co-chairman of the conference again in the near future to continue that discussion. The British Government hold fast to the view that a close and co-operative relationship with the Republic of Ireland is essential. For our part, we shall seek to sustain and develop the relationship. Equally, we shall seek to heal any damage to the relationship caused by external factors and to resolve disagreements between the two Governments in an amicable, if sometimes forthright, manner. It being Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker-- interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Resolution [16 March].

Column 1339

Strangeways Prison

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that I ought to make a further statement to the House about the serious events at Manchester prison over the past few days before we rise for the Easter recess.

Since I reported to the House last Monday, prison staff have continued progressively to regain control of the buildings. During the same period, a large number of prisoners have surrendered. But 12 prisoners can be seen inside the prison, who have been identified by name. Pending a final check of our records, I cannot say whether there might not be more.

Negotiations are continuing in order to bring this appalling incident to a close, and I know that the governor and his staff, who throughout have conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism, will continue to do so. I should also like to thank the police and the fire and ambulance services for the work that they have done.

I am very sorry to have to inform the House that a Manchester prison officer died in hospital this morning. He had been on duty on Sunday 1 April, and, although he suffered no injuries during the disturbance, he was admitted to hospital later that day. I wish to express my deep sympathy to his family in their loss. The House will already be aware that a remand prisoner, Mr. Derek White, who suffered serious injuries in the course of the events of last Sunday and who was admitted to hospital on that day, died as a result of those injuries on 3 April. Again, I offer my sympathy to his relatives.

During the past few days a number of prison officers have also been injured, but all but one have now been discharged from hospital. The Greater Manchester police have opened a murder inquiry, following the death of Mr. White, and other criminal investigations into the incident.

A special telephone number for the use of relatives concerned as to the whereabouts of individual prisoners in Manchester prison at the start of the incident has been available since Sunday. It is 061-817 8178. All governors receiving prisoners from Manchester have also been asked to enable them to make a telephone call to a relative or friend without charge.

Urgent consideration is also being given to the new arrangements which will need to be made to accommodate people committed from the courts in the Manchester area.

I have already expressed my intention to set up an inquiry into this incident as soon as it has been resolved. It will be conducted by Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference will be to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's prison, Manchester and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. I intend that the report, which will be separate from, and will not conflict with, the criminal investigation, should be published.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : I express my thanks to the Home Secretary for making his statement. I know that he had rightly hoped to make it after the riot had ended, but it is absolutely correct that he should come and tell the House how things stand on this, our last sitting day before Easter.

Once more, I expressed our gratitude to, and admiration for, the police, fire officers, ambulance staff and prison officers who have risked their lives and safety

Column 1340

in Strangeways this week. I offer our condolences to the family of the prison officer whose tragic death the Home Secretary has just reported and to the family of the inmate who died. The fact that the dead prisoner was on remand awaiting trial, and therefore innocent before the law, adds to the tragedy of his death.

The Home Secretary has told us nothing about the reported disturbances in other prisons. Has he anything that he feels he should tell the House on that subject?

I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement that an inquiry is to be set up. Today, I want to do no more than to ask the Home Secretary for assurances about the issues that the inquiry will consider. The Home Secretary will know that both the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association attribute the extent of the riot to understaffing. The prison governors have been explicit in relating the riot to what they call

"taut staffing levels since the introduction of Fresh Start". May we be assured that the inquiry will be empowered to make a wide-ranging examination of staffing levels?

The Home Secretary will recall that last Monday I asked him about the warnings of riots in Strangeways and he told the House that no significant warnings had been received. Reports continue of warnings which, at least to the layman, appear to have been significant, and recklessly ignored. May we again be assured that the inquiry will examine the significance of the alleged warnings and the appropriateness of the authorities' reaction to them?

I make no comment and ask no question about operational matters as the siege continues and none of us wishes to do anything that might prevent its speedy resolution, but will the inquiry examine the general principle of containment, rather than forcible entry, on occasions such as this, especially given that it is reported that inside the prison a number of prisoners are being assaulted and other criminal acts are therefore taking place? Perhaps the Home Secretary does not want to comment even in the most oblique way on the subject this morning, in which case I shall understand the absence of an answer, but I hope that the inquiry will examine the principle, because there is great concern throughout the country that bestial and appalling acts are going on inside the prison and the thought of stopping them immediately ought to be in the public mind and under public examination.

Mr. Waddington : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the thanks that he expressed to all those who have had to carry a heavy burden in the past few days and who have performed magnificently. I am grateful also for the condolences that he expressed to the families of the prison officer who died and the prisoner who died. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the disturbances that broke out at other prisons are not continuing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry. Of course, it will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to interpret the terms of reference, but he will be concerned to deal with the events leading up to the disturbances and also with the way in which the problem was tackled once those disturbances broke out. On the question of the reports of warnings, I advise the House and those listening outside to leave these matters now to Lord Justice Woolf. I hope that hon. Members and others will put any evidence in their possession before

Column 1341

Lord Justice Woolf. It is far better that it should be done in that way rather than that reports of one sort or another should be leaked to the press.

Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central) : May I, in turn, offer my sincere condolences to the bereaved families in this awful affair? It is estimated that prison officers have recaptured more than 50 per cent. of the prisoners. If that is so, surely they must have witnessed signs of the barbaric scenes that have been described, especially in the tabloid press. Will the Home Secretary comment on that?

Mr. Waddington : The prison officers at Strangeways have not seen the result of any barbaric acts. What we do know is that violence must have occurred on the very first day because violence was done to one prisoner, who, unhappily, has since died. I cannot invite anyone in the House to accept a picture of violence occurring since then. Certainly there have been no macabre discoveries by prison officers during the past few days.

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is great respect for the police, prison officers and others who have been concerned with this disastrous emergency in Manchester? Does he also agree that there is admiration for the tactful way in which the authorities have sought to bring the matter to a peaceful conclusion with the minimum of violence? Does he accept that it is welcome news that there is to be a thorough inquiry by a respected judge into the circumstances and that it is important to await the conclusion of that inquiry before determining the cause of this terrible tragedy? Will he separately bring forward his review of the management structure of the prison service in England and Wales and give further consideration to the plight of overcrowding in the old, inner-city Victorian prisons?

Mr. Waddington : As my hon. Friend knows, we have made considerable inroads into the overcrowding problem, but that problem is undoubtedly concentrated on the old local prisons. That is the trouble. However, one of the tragedies with Manchester is that it is a setback to all the plans that have been put in train and the progress that has already been made to get rid of overcrowding in our prisons.

I heard what my hon. Friend said about the efforts that have been made to bring this terrible event to a peaceful conclusion. Again, all those matters are for Lord Justice Woolf, but many might take the view that, in this kind of incident, one should bend one's efforts towards bringing the matter to an end peacefully, because any other course, when other lives are not imminently in danger, could result in more injuries, if not deaths.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to join in with the sympathy that has been expressed for the families of the prison officer and the prisoner who have died. Can the Home Secretary tell us how many prisoners from Strangeways are unaccounted for following the dispersal to other prisons? I welcome very much the appointment of a very distinguished lord justice of appeal to undertake the inquiry, but will the Home Secretary confirm that Lord Justice Woolf will, as part of his terms of reference, be able

Column 1342

to review how rule 43 is operated, because it appears that one of the problems that has arisen is the juxtaposition of rule 43 restricted prisoners--protected prisoners--with other prisoners who have sought to commit violence against them?

Mr. Waddington : Of course we do not know at this juncture whether we have seen all those inside the prison. The figure that I gave earlier relates to the 12 people who have been identified and seen by prison staff. My latest information is that all the rule 43 prisoners have been accounted for.

Lord Justice Woolf will interpret the terms of reference as he thinks right. Obviously, he is likely to consider where the rule 43 prisoners were. The difficulty in a local prison such as Strangeways is that the young offenders must be separated from the old offenders and those on remand have to be separated from those who have been sentenced. Carrying out that exercise is quite a problem while at the same time separating all rule 43 prisoners not only from their colleagues, but from everyone else.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the inquiry to consider whether it was more than just coincidence that this ghastly riot broke out on the same weekend as the serious riots in London? May we use this incident as a turning point to consider a new gaol with a new name, thus putting ghastly Victorian conditions behind us?

Mr. Waddington : It is too early to decide what we should do now after the terrible damage to Strangeways. Clearly I cannot say whether there was any element of copying what might have been seen on the television screens. I do not think that it is helpful to speculate about that.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : Does the Home Secretary agree that if Lord Justice Woolf is to carry out a full and detailed inquiry, it might be wise, bearing in mind the fact that evidence already exists of criminality within the prison, that the inquiry should stretch beyond any prosecutions in respect of the criminality, because those who were there at the time could be granted immunity from subsequent prosecution and perhaps their evidence to the inquiry might be more detailed and valuable?

Mr. Waddington : Any question of immunity is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, there is no reason why the inquiry should touch on the criminal investigation.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : I want to express my admiration for those involved in dealing with the riot including the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance men and the prison officers, many of whom are my constituents.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how wide the inquiry is likely to be? My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) referred to overcrowding in prisons. Many practising lawyers and I are concerned that so many prisoners are inactive in prison. I believe in the old saying, "The devil finds work for idle hands to do." Many prisoners enter gaol without ever having done an honest day's work, and they come out in the same state.

Column 1343

Mr. Waddington : My hon. Friend may recall that I quoted some figures the other day. One of the sadnesses of this affair is that great improvements had taken place in the regimes at Manchester during the year or so before the disturbance. The House will forgive me if I repeat the figures that I gave the other day. The hours of activity for convicted adults were 12.79 hours a week last year, but 22.73 hours this year.

There is no doubt that the governor deserves our congratulations on the progress that has been made in Manchester. The other day I referred to the report of the chief inspector of prisons, who had a great deal to say about the progress that has been made in Manchester. He said :

" life at Manchester is a great deal nearer what it should be, both for staff and inmates, than it was some two years ago There was much more to praise than to decry in an establishment clearly going in the right direction and with an optimistic momentum.' "--[ Official Report, 2 April 1990 ; Vol. 170, c. 904.]

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) : How many prisoners have been transferred to Armley prison, in my constituency, which is already recognised as the most overcrowded prison in Britain? Problems of understaffing have been rumbling on in that prison for some months now. Can the Home Secretary give us positive assurance that additional overcrowding pressure will not simply be transferred from Strangeways to Armley prison in Leeds?

Mr. Waddington : Obviously prisoners had to be transferred, because it was an emergency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that had to happen and that there are unfortunate consequences as a result. However, we will do our best to keep the hon. Gentleman informed. If he will get in touch with my office, I will give him what information I can about the transfer of prisoners to Armley.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there have been no fatalities beyond the two that he mentioned. Will he comment on an extremely disturbing report on the "Today" programme this morning, in which a solicitor acting for one of the prisoners reported that the prisoner had said that he had seen two men who had been hanged and men who had been thrown over balconies? I understand that some of those issues are matters for the inquiry, but it is important to establish the extent of the brutality because the public should be aware of it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that?

Mr. Waddington : My hon. Friend will recall that a very short time ago I said that all the rule 43 prisoners had been accounted for. So far, no bodies have been found. Obviously one does not want to say categorically that we will not come across a tragedy, but that is the position at present.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : Does the Home Secretary accept that prison officers in various prisons that have accepted people from Strangeways should also be praised because of the difficulties that they face? In Liverpool, they accepted the situation with proper discussion and so on.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that people are getting information as quickly as they should when they find that relatives in prison are perhaps missing and they do not know what has happened to them? They

Column 1344

are anxious, particularly when they read in the gutter press horrific stories of 20 bodies being seen and so on. Such reports may or may not be right, but they worry people.

The telephone number that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave is all right, but the authorities cannot always give the answers. When prisoners are identified and their whereabouts and what has happened to them are known, I should have thought that it was the responsibility of the Home Office to let their relatives know as soon as possible so that worry is lifted from the people concerned.

Mr. Waddington : I appreciate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly echo his thanks to the staff of other prisons who have had to bear a considerable burden in the past few days, and have borne it extremely well. The telephone number I mentioned has been available since Sunday. Obviously, we shall do our best to inform people , but people in prison now have the facility to ring their relatives, and people with members of their families in prison are invited to ring that number.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on my congratulations to the governor and prison officers? Having an aging prison in my constituency, I know just how difficult conditions can be for them. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his twin-track approach to sentencing is the long-term answer to overcrowding? It combines the need to protect the public from more violent criminals with much longer sentences and the need to reduce the prison population by getting as many people as possible back into the community.

Mr Waddington : My hon. Friend is entirely right. I make it plain that our White Paper was not the beginnings of a policy ; it was the culmination of it. In recent years, more and more people have been dealt with by punishment in the community, and that has helped greatly towards the reduction in the prison population over the past two years.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the inquiry will examine the efficacy of keeping remand prisoners in establishments such as Strangeways? Does not the effectiveness of the emergency services and the prison staff signal the end of discussions on the privatisation of prisons?

Mr. Waddington : There never has been any question of the privatisation of prisons. On remand prisoners, there is a difficulty and a balance is to be struck. We want remand prisoners to be near their legal advisers and their families, and not too far from the courts before which they must appear. We shall never see the day when all remand prisoners are in establishments miles from city centres where the courts sit.

Next Section

Home Page