| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 846
court? If they all got 10 years, that would mean 10,000 more years of imprisonment. In any case, how could we prove how many were responsible for inciting the mutiny?I tend to agree with the Prison Officers Association that the Bill is irrelevant to attempts to end rioting. All in all, it will have little or no effect. I am not sure whether it extends to Operation Container, under which many prisoners are still held in prison cells in Greater Manchester-- I hope that the Minister will comment on that. The amendments introduce the idea of a threat of violence. Such a threat was used at Strangeways and, to a lesser degree, in the copycat riots elsewhere in the wake of Strangeways. The amendments attempt to define what would constitute a mutiny, in the shape of a threat of violence for the purpose of overthrowing lawful order in a prison. That puts some meat on the bare bones of what the Government are trying to do.
In Committee, the Minister of State claimed that prisoners might argue about, say, the colour of their bread. On 17 December, she said :
"It may be argued that it is unreasonable to say that a prison mutiny begins when people sit down and refuse to eat food ; it only starts when the prison officer has said, Look here, Fred and George, it is high time you went back to your cell' and Fred and George have said, No, we're not going back, we're going to sit here for the rest of the night' Does violence always have to be involved? A prison may be disrupted by a refusal to conform with the authority that is essential to control a prison."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1991 ; c. 25.]
Does arguing about the colour of bread or continuing to sit down constitute a mutiny? The Bill is vague on that point.
By making such comments, the Minister does a disservice to the governors and men and women who run our prisons. There are daily protests about bad food, clothing and conditions, and governors and staff become expert at quelling such problems. They use subtlety and persuasion to cajole prisoners into conforming. There are peaks and troughs in prisoners' emotional behaviour and the staff learn to understand them. Trust is built up. If a governor thought that refusal to eat brown bread were tantamount to mutiny and called in prison staff to give evidence, what would happen to the trust between prisoner and officer?
No governor would react in the way outlined by the Minister. The training and experience of governors allow them to find ways of dealing with tricky situations without reading the riot Act. It is our duty to protect staff from violence or the threat of violence, which is why I support the amendments.
Mrs. Rumbold : Amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 7.
I begin by explaining why my right hon. Friend and I are more than ever convinced of the need for this piece of legislation. It is not only we who are committed to it ; the previous Home Secretary also gave a commitment, as did the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice", in which we sought to reiterate our commitment. We have not yet received any comments from either the Prison Governors Association or the Prison Officers Association. We shall certainly consider such comments as soon as we receive them, but I repeat that we have had absolutely no comments on the Bill from any of the people running our prisons.
Column 847
I suspect that, if there had been the strength of feeling against the Bill that Opposition Members suggested, those who are allegedly against the legislation would have submitted written arguments. The only evidence that I can adduce in this regard comes from a visit that I paid in the last couple of weeks to a prison that has only recently been built with taxpayers' money and at vast expense. That prison was wilfully and disgracefully damaged by young people on remand, who came from the same part of the country as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland). Both the Home Secretary and I found that behaviour thoroughly reprehensible, and it is in no way acceptable to the people of this country.I have absolutely no doubt that this is an essential piece of legislation, and that the removal from it of part of clause 1 will focus the issue. We seek to remove the objection which the hon. Member for Huddersfield had about the legislation at one point--that the provisions might "capture" those people who are not as violent or difficult as the young people at Moorland who were responsible during the Christmas period for the behaviour to which I have just referred.
To that extent, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has welcomed our amendments. I did not expect him to be capable of resisting the usual "Yah-boo, I told you so" reaction. That is too much to expect from the hon. Member for Huddersfield and, as expected, he did not resist it. None the less, it is important that we have established a clear and convincing resolution. The Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It will ensure that we have some redress against those people who think that they can act so disgracefully in our prison establishments, especially those that are newly built and in which we have emphasised the importance of making them more humane. We have heard enough about the importance of such establishments being humane. If we are to provide the humane establishments that I should like to see and to allow those who are responsible for running our prisons to have the establishment and discipline they need, we need this legislation on the statute book. The framework provided by the Bill is exceedingly important. I commend our amendments to the House.
Mr. Sheerman : The right hon. Lady has been most interesting. I accept her point and the kind words that she briefly passed my way. I am interested in the visit to Moorland to which she referred. Can she say, in a little detail, whether this legislation would have been used at Moorland in the recent disturbances ?
Mrs. Rumbold : It would be injudicious of me to say anything about such a matter, because that raises a question about legislation that is not yet on the statute book. I have every confidence that, as soon as the Bill is enacted, the type of behaviour that took place at Moorland, about which people across the country will have read, will be addressed. I refer to youngsters who wilfully destroyed public property that was provided at vast expense and to behaviour that very much disadvantaged the young people themselves.
The Bill is therefore an essential piece of legislation. Even if it is not necessary to use the legislation, the very fact that it is on the statute book will prove an exceedingly important deterrent, because it clearly outlines the penalties that those who undertake such behaviour run the risk of incurring.
Column 848
Mr. John Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong for an hon. Member--let alone a Minister--to express a view on whether an offence should be charged in respect of the recent disturbances at Moorland or any other prison, given that clause 1(5) requires that no proceedings can be brought
"except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
5.45 pm
Mrs. Rumbold : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had not expected that I would necessarily be asked a sensible question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I was simply expressing a view that I know is widely held across the country about the exhibitions that we have witnessed not only recently but in previous years, when there was a disastrous series of demonstrations by inmates who showed scant regard for public property and for whether they were to be held responsible. Even if people are in prison, they have some responsibility for the way in which they conduct themselves.
Mr. Sheerman : The Minister is right. It is disgraceful that people committed to our prisons should then proceed to act in that way, whether at Moorland or at Strangeways. The Opposition are totally against such behaviour and the destruction of property. Such occurrences are dreadful, and we seek the most effective way of stopping them.
However, we also want to stop the other dreadful things that have happened in prisons under this Government. I refer to the two prisoners who left Brixton, almost by courtesy and through the back door. Only today we have heard that a mafia boss who was sent to Springfield prison for five years and who has drug connections at the highest level has walked out of there. We want such things to be stopped and for the Government to do that effectively.
Mrs. Rumbold : I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Bill. That is the clearest declaration that I have heard to the effect that the Opposition deplore such behaviour and believe that some form of legislation is necessary. This is what we propose, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in accepting the Bill and that he will vote in favour of it when the time comes.
Mr. Soames : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Labour party were to vote against the Bill, that would show what the people in the country already know--that Opposition Members are soft on law and order?
Several hon. Members rose--
Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. I refer hon. Members to the amendments that we are considering. This knockabout is all very amusing, but we are dealing with detailed amendments, which hon. Members should now address.
Mrs. Rumbold : I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I turn now to amendment No. 4.
Mr. Maclennan : I should be most grateful if the right hon. Lady could amplify Government amendment No. 7. When apparently answering the question about the circumstances in which the Bill might be used, the right hon. Lady said that she had seen malicious damage that had been carried out by prisoners on remand. Are we to
Column 849
take it that malicious damage by prisoners on remand is to be considered an offence that may haul down the penalties for mutiny? If not, why did she even mention that? What is its relevance to the debate?Mrs. Rumbold : I do not think that the hon. Member knows a tremendous amount about what happens in our prison system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave a perfectly sensible answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
I turn now to amendment No. 4, on which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and I happen to agree. It relates to the minimum number of people who could be regarded as committing the specified crime. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Huddersfield later said that the number that he had selected--six--is arbitrary--
Mr. Sheerman : It is a negotiating number.
Mrs. Rumbold : I see that we are going to play with words. It is a negotiating number. The hon. Gentleman gave as his reason for this the fact that a man has to do what a man has to do.
Mr. Sheerman : The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked me why it was that Oppositions tabled amendments, and I said quite honestly that procedures make us behave in this way. We table amendments because that is the way to improve a Bill. That is what a man, or a woman, has to do.
Mrs. Rumbold : I cannot resist it, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I know that a woman has to do what a woman has to do. I can adduce one or two arguments for believing that it is not necessary for us to accept the amendment taking the figure above two.
Mr. Sheerman : Perhaps the Minister should go away and think about it.
Mrs. Rumbold : I did go away and think about it. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I recalled that, in Committee, I had said that I would go away and think about this and other related matters. I did indeed do so, and I decided that introducing amendment No. 7 would be infinitely preferable to accepting a change of number. I did this because it is possible to believe that an officer might have difficulty in quelling trouble created by more than two people. He would probably have difficulty in quelling six or even five. We have to choose a number, and, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made clear, going above the number of two does not make a great deal of sense. Therefore, I am not particularly attracted to the amendment.
A second and more fundamental objection is that raising the minimum to six would make it a great deal harder to prove a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority, which is the crux of the matter. It is a stringent test to prove that two people had a common purpose, and an infinitely more stringent test to prove that a greater number than two had a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, this was a negotiating point, but I am afraid that I am not able to accept his offer of negotiation on this point.
Amendment No. 5 not only deletes paragraph (b) but further restricts paragraph (a) by requiring the use or
Column 850
threat of violence before a charge of mutiny may be brought. When we discussed this in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who sadly is not here now but who made a useful contribution at the beginning of the debate, was particularly concerned to limit the offence of mutiny to incidents involving the use or threat of violence.Let me say immediately that I am almost certain, given my knowledge of what happens in prisons, that there will be an element of violence in the serious disturbances at which the Bill is aimed. In resisting this amendment, I am taking into account the fact that it can be very difficult to prove particular acts of violence against particular inmates in a prison and behind locked doors.
An incident may occur within a building where many inmates have barricaded themselves in. If, in spite of the evidence of widespread damage, it is not possible to prove the use or threat of violence against a particular inmate, this amendment would prevent any of those involved being successfully prosecuted for mutiny. I think that this is not what the hon. Member for Huddersfield intended. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale was anxious to establish the point that we are seeking to ensure that this serious offence is caught in future. A further point is that the ringleaders in the disturbance--those who instigate or orchestrate it--may not themselves participate in acts of violence. Therefore, it is important that they, who are as culpable as others, are not let off the hook. It is for that reason that I wish to resist the amendment tabled by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central was particularly concerned about the number of prisoners held in Manchester in a container situation. There are now 200 people in the police cells in Operation Container. That is not satisfactory, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are doing everything we can to reduce the number, particularly as this is both expensive and an unsatisfactory solution, given that we feel strongly that the prison service should contain such prisoners.
I understand only too well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). A prison such as Gartree contains lifers--people condemned to prison for a long time--and it is less likely that they will be impressed by an offence of prison mutiny that attracts a fairly long sentence. As he rightly says, those people are already in prison for a long time, so the deterrent effect of this measure may not be as great for such people. That is no reason for not introducing this measure so as to catch people on shorter sentences who commit an offence of this nature. I am sure that he will agree that it would be foolish not to pursue the Bill.
Mr. Litherland : Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Rumbold : I should like to finish, because I have to deal with amendment No. 8, which would remove clause 1(3).
The first part of clause 1(3) provides that the intentions and common purposes of prisoners may be inferred from their conduct. This is similar to a provision in the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to the offence of riot. That too, as the House will be aware, requires a common purpose, and that common purpose may be inferred from conduct, as we propose here. It is not clear how prisoners' common purpose is to be proved if not by inferring it from their conduct. In the absence of an admission by the prisoners
Column 851
concerned, there may be no evidence of the formation of a plan to overthrow lawful authority, other than the conduct of the prisoners being consistent with such a plan. For that reason, we should be unhappy to see the first part of clause 1(3) removed.The second part of clause 1(3) provides that the conduct of different prisoners may take a different form. For example, prisoners may act together in one part of the prison to overthrow an officer, while in another case, others may be in different situations doing different things, but acting in unison. Clause 1(3) as it stands provides that, in both situations, a common purpose may be inferred from the conduct of the prisoners.
I have looked carefully at the amendments tabled by the Opposition--Nos. 4, 5 and 8--but I cannot accept them. I hope that they will accept my reasoning and not press the amendments to a vote. However, it is rare for an amendment to be tabled in the name of both a Secretary of State and his Opposition shadow, as amendment No. 7 is tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Therefore, I commend that amendment to the House.
Mr. Sheerman : I felt discomfort when I first saw this remarkable juxtaposition of the Home Secretary's name with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). We believe that this is a major success. We have persuaded the Government of the error of their ways, so they have accepted amendment No. 7. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and others who spoke about the amendments never referred to that fact in all the clone-like speeches that they made on Second Reading. There was no criticism in that debate, but now they accept an amendment that drives a coach and horses through the Bill that we debated on Second Reading.
This has been an instructive process, because, after we asked and persuaded the Government, at the very last minute they are accepting a major amendment that changes the Bill's whole complexion. We shall push to Division amendment No. 5, but we are pleased to have converted the Government to common sense in respect of amendment No. 7, and we will not press the related amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed : No. 5, in page 1, line 9, leave out from prison' to end of line 14 and insert
together use or threaten violence for the common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison.'.-- [Mr. Sheerman.] Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 157, Noes 211.
Division No. 57] [6 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beggs, Roy
Bell, Stuart
Bellotti, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Column 852
Campbell-Savours, D. N.Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Cartwright, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Dixon, Don
Doran, Frank
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alexander
Enright, Derek
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Fearn, Ronald
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Flynn, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fyfe, Maria
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hardy, Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Hood, Jimmy
Howells, Geraint
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ingram, Adam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kirkwood, Archy
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Lamond, James
| Next Section
| Home Page |