House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Oct 1992

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) : Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that his statement promising the coal industry not a new policy but a slow death by delay will be viewed with dismay and disgust by people throughout the country and especially in Stoke-on-Trent where Trentham remains marked for closure ? Does he realise that that pit set a European record last year for the fastest 2 million tonnes of coal ever mined and made a substantial profit ? Is he aware that his claim that the pit lost £20 million this year is a fraud, because that figure includes one-off capital investment in a new administration office block, a new stockyard, a new fitting shop and new seams ? Will he undertake an independent inquiry so that he can base his future actions on real facts and not on fakes ?

Mr. Heseltine : I do not think that the hon. Gentleman takes into account the fact that there is no gain to British Coal in closing pits unless it sees no realistic alternative. If it sees no realistic alternative, there is no gain to British Coal in closing any other than the least efficient pits. British Coal will be charged with the responsibility for maintaining the fabric of its organisation and will obviously maintain that best if it keeps the best pits. So there is no logic in the assumptions upon which the hon. Gentleman based his question.

Column 232

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : Will cheaper electricity not generate additional job opportunities in energy-intensive industry? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only alternative to his statement is the creation of coal stocks equal to 18 months or two years' consumption--coal stocks which would make the butter mountains of the European Community appear to be mere hillocks?

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend raises two points. Coal stocks are an issue that no one can avoid. They are increasing at the rate of 1 million tonnes a month. Miners in their communities know that. They mine the coal and there it is, either at the generating stations or at the pit head because there is no demand--to the tune of 1 million tonnes per month--for the coal that is being mined. Demand is scheduled to reduce by perhaps 25 million tonnes during the next few months.

My hon. Friend's second point is equally right. If we impose higher electricity charges on industry, it will make it less competitive and as a consequence there will be fewer jobs in industry. That is the sort of dilemma that we must balance.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh) : Coming from a constituency which has endured three colliery closures within the past seven and a half months, may I convey to the Secretary of State the anxiety, the feelings and the depression of miners, with an average age of 27 years, who have moved from pit to pit with the guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies and who have been totally isolated and neglected and are now near, not to hope, but to despair? How can he reconcile the fact that he proposes to close profitable pits with the fact that uneconomic, dangerous nuclear power stations are being highly subsidised--to the tune of £1,260 million a year levy--and still command 20 per cent. of our total energy market? Could not the production from profitable pits replace at least 50 per cent. of that and save 10,000 miners' jobs? How can he justify the fact that the market competitiveness that he boasts about cannot have a level playing field because of a subsidised levy to protect the vested interests of the nuclear industry?

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman ignores the cost of decommissioning the old nuclear plant. The nuclear levy exists to meet those costs. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a subsidy of more than £1 billion a year, he completely forgets the £18 billion which has gone in to the coal industry during the past 12 years.

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Point of Ayr colliery in Clwyd has a market, at competitive rates, for every tonne of coal that it produces and that, even by British Coal's criteria, it should not have been included in the closure list in the first place?

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend will appreciate that, as I have told many hon. Members, British Coal must calculate on the market that it foresees and not on today's market, and on the prices that it expects next April. It is well able to anticipate that position now because it is negotiating with the generators contracts which name tonnage and prices. Against that inescapable background, British Coal has made these extremely difficult proposals to me.

Column 233

Mr. David Hanson (Delyn) : I have not once heard the Secretary of State and President of the Board of Trade apologise during this debate to the 500 miners in my constituency for the uncertainty of the closure proposals and the uncertainties that they face during the next six to nine months of the moratorium. Point of Ayr was included at the last minute and should not have been included. Why does he not take action today to ban imports of coal, which are damaging the industry, and to consider the gas situation? The gas will not go away ; it is there. Why do we not have a proper, planned energy strategy which will secure the future of my miners, constituents and community?

Mr. Heseltine : Again, the hon. Gentleman will be more aware of the precise details than I am-- [Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Gentleman's dilemma is that there are proposals for a gas and oil installation with an investment of some £2 billion alongside the Point of Ayr pit. That is the dilemma that we all face--a £2 billion investment to provide cheaper fuel for the electricity generating world alongside a pit which British Coal says is uneconomical and which it wishes to close. The £2 billion will create a huge number of jobs in the area concerned. There is a trade off, as hon. Members have discovered time and again.

Mr. Robin Cook : As the House will have an opportunity on Wednesday to go over the many questions that the Secretary of State has left unanswered, only one point needs to be put on the record today. To remove the confusion that appears to exist among Conservative Back Benchers and so that there is no misunderstanding of the point when we debate it on Wednesday, will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no review-- independent or otherwise--proposed in his statement? On the contrary, his statement commits him during the moratorium to

"set out the full case for the closures which . . . I agreed". There is no hint of a review here. If the Secretary of State is so confident of his case, why is he not willing to take his chance of arguing it before an independent review?

Mr. Heseltine : I have answered that question time and time again. I have told the House today that I shall set out in considerable detail the case upon which British Coal made its recommendations to me. I shall set out the implications of that and put them before the House once there has been a moratorium which will enable a discussion and consultations to take place. We shall not proceed with further closures until after the House has had a debate, after the moratorium has ended and after my report to the House has been made. The hon. Gentleman wants to produce a review that will apparently raise a range of conflicting arguments upon which there will be no agreement before, during or after the review. As I said to one of my hon. Friends, those matters are deeply controversial within the energy industry, every part of which has a vested interest that it will not abandon, whatever the evidence put before it.

Ultimately, I am responsible for the Government's energy policy, which I shall set out, and I shall make clear the basis on which we intend to proceed--[ Hon. Members :-- "Resign."]

Madam Speaker : Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 20.

Column 234

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : When the announcement was made last Tuesday, I wrote to you, Madam Speaker with respect to a Standing Order No. 20 emergency debate on the pit closure programme. Following that, the shadow Cabinet decided to allocate a supply day and, quite properly, to debate this issue. I believe that my request for an emergency debate tomorrow should continue so that we have a two-day debate to hear everything that my hon. Friends, in particular, want to say. At least 20 of them did not get a chance to put their questions today and many questions have remained unanswered, not least the last one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about a review.

The President of the Board of Trade has been hoodwinking the people out there this afternoon. In particular, he has been hoodwinking some of his Back Benchers to give them the impression that he has delivered a moratorium when in fact he will conduct whatever limited review takes place and come back with whatever he likes. That is one of the unanswered questions.

This matter is urgent, important and specific. It is important because the Government talk about ballots yet when they discussed the matter in Cabinet they did not even have a ballot because they did not have a full Cabinet. It is also important as the matter is being rushed through because of the remaining 40 per cent. of the electricity industry to be privatised. There is 40 per cent. left to sell and the Government want to rush it through to line their friends' pockets. That is why they cannot afford to wait more than three months. They also want to get hold of the pension funds. There is £13 billion in the two pension funds belonging to the miners and others who work in the industry. It is estimated that another £1 billion is left, and the Treasury will try to get its hands on that £1 billion to pay for redundancies. That is the Government's game. A woman in my constituency sent me a parcel yesterday. She said, "Here, take this to Heseltine. This is a miner's suit. He works in a hot seam. There's his pants ; there's his vest. Give 'em to Heseltine. I hope he gets the other 30,999 and then he'll have an invaluable national asset." Here, take them. The woman said, "P.S. I've washed them, but the socks need darning." Why does not the Secretary of State put them on, clean up that coal outside his front gate, and never return?

Madam Speaker : Order. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and must give my decision without stating any reasons for doing so. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, at this stage, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This concerns the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that on 4 March, the former and now defunct Energy Select Committee of the House--the House and the public set great store by Select Committees--published a three-volume report of 300 pages concerning the consequences of electricity privatisation. An important section of that was about the consequences for the coal industry. The Secretary of State published a response--or claimed response--on 9 June. As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, under a Cabinet minute available to all Select Committee members, the normal procedure is

Column 235

that the Government supply a response to a Select Committee report--that report had no fewer than 50 conclusions and recommendations--either by oral statement in the House, a command paper, or a memorandum to the Chair of the Committee concerned, perhaps supplemented by written answers.

In this case, a written answer and a press release referred to two documents that had been placed in the Library as deposited documents. Some hon. Members may not know that those are not normally available to the media. The two documents consisted of one memorandum of three and a half pages from the Secretary of State responding to nine of the 50 conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee. There was another memorandum by the Director of Electricity Supply to the other 41. Some were replied to by both.

That semi-secret method and the mode of reply were not in accordance with the expectations or requirements of the House. It could be argued that, if some of those recommendations had been adopted, what we have discussed today would not have occurred. Will you therefore, Madam Speaker, rule on whether the Secretary of State's conduct was in accordance with the House's expectations? If it is not within your power so to rule, will you state by whom, which Committee and what means the President's disgraceful and inadequate conduct in a democratic state can be further examined?

Mr. Heseltine : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order. I cannot allow a response from the Government to a point of order which is directed to me, in the Chair, as I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving me notice of his point of order, with a full explanation of what he had in mind. I believe that he is aware that the Government's response to a Select Committee report is a matter between the Government and the Committee--in this case the successor Committee to the Select Committee on Energy, the Select Committee

Column 236

on Trade and Industry. Therefore, alleged inadequacies in a reply do not raise questions that can be considered a point of order for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has many ideas about how to pursue the matter in other ways.

Mr. Heseltine : On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I seek your guidance as I want to help the House and clarify the matter. I shall immediately investigate how the situation arose--I suspect that it was to do with the fact that the Select Committee no longer exists. If the documents are not in the public domain, I shall seek an opportunity to put them there.

Madam Speaker : I am sure that the House appreciates what the Secretary of State has said.

Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the House has been misled this afternoon. It has been given the impression that there is to be an independent review with a moratorium. In view of the fact that Trentham pit has already ceased operations on the evidence of--

Madam Speaker : Order. I want to help every Member when I can. I know that the hon. Lady has a deep constituency interest in the matter, but she is attempting to prolong questions on the statement, and I cannot let her do that by means of a point of order. I have every sympathy with her and I am sorry that I could not call her, but there are many other Members who I have been unable to call. I cannot allow further debate on the matter now.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This afternoon the Secretary of Trade failed to mention the future of Tursdale workshop in my constituency--

Madam Speaker : Order. That is a very good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I saw the hon. Gentleman rising earlier and I think that he had better leave the matter with me for later. I might remember his face in a few days' time.

Column 237

Orders of the Day

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [ Lords ] Order for Second Reading read.

5.42 pm

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I move to the substance of the debate, I shall take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a major achievement and I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate him on it. I hope that he will enjoy as long and distinguished a career in that position as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who will be missed at our deliberations. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman's new Front-Bench colleagues and wish them everything that I wished their predecessors.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Is it the Secretary of State's intention to seek the creation of a Special Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 91? It seems that the Bill contains important measures on the management of our prisons, and such a Committee-- which can meet on no more than four occasions--would be a useful way to allow Members to cross-examine witnesses and send for papers relating to this important legislation.

Mr. Lang : I certainly agree that the Bill is full of technical and detailed measures which it will be appropriate to scrutinise closely in Committee. Indeed, I fear that my speech today may become more detailed than I would normally wish in a Second Reading debate, but it flows from the fruits of the work of the Kincraig committee--an immensely distinguished and reasonably broadly based committee. That committee report was extensively consulted and applies to a specialist sector--the House already has the benefit of an enormous degree of scrutiny and careful consideration. That will inform our deliberations in Committee as well as any Standing Committee would. Therefore, I am not minded to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request for a Special Standing Committee on this occasion, although I acknowledge the potential role of such Committees in some circumstances. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : I have been here, and in my place, since 2.30 pm--unlike some Members who have just entered the Chamber.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread concern about the operation of clause 32(5), which was inserted in another place against the advice of the Government through an amendment tabled by Lord Campbell of Alloway? That clause will make it much more difficult to prosecute war criminals, who are among some of the most beastly men--if not the most beastly men--in this country. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will seek to reverse that decision of the House of Lords?

Column 238

Mr. Lang : My hon. Friend mentioned clause 32, and in the interest of orderly progress, I shall come to that later in my speech. When I do so, I think that I shall give my hon. Friend the sort of reassurance that he seeks.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : There is at least one respect in which the Government have rejected the recommendations of the Kincraig report in a material matter that affects the terms of the Bill. Is not that, of itself, a compelling reason for hearing what Lord Kincraig and others with an interest in the matter have to say in a Special Standing Committee?

Mr. Lang : It is a more compelling reason for getting the Bill into Committee quickly so that the House can satisfy itself that the Government's attitude is right. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there are a number of points on which the Government disagreed with the Kincraig committee, for reasons which have been spelt out in another place--and which will be spelt out in Committee in this place. That is not a compelling reason to use the Special Standing Committee procedure.

As the short title suggests, the Bill serves two main purposes. The first is to reform existing arrangements for the early release of prisoners. The second is to make improvements in the law governing criminal evidence and criminal procedure in Scotland.

The Bill is limited in scope. It does not change the substantive criminal law or significantly affect the structure of penalties available to the court. The measures in part I are, however, designed to lead to greater fairness, consistency and openness in the administration of custodial sentences. They are long awaited, and I am confident in saying that in principle they command support across the political spectrum of the House.

As for part II, the measures will improve the administration of pre-trial and trial procedures, avoid unnecessary burdens being placed on witnesses, clarify the rights of accused persons and speed up the business of the courts. Those are highly desirable aims which I hope will be welcomed by hon. Members.

Most of the provisions in part I stem from the recommendations of the Kincraig committee. More formally, that was the committee of inquiry into parole and related issues in Scotland, the chairman of which was Lord Kincraig. I should like to acknowledge our indebtness to that committee. Its report was generally very well received and our proposals reflect the wide acceptability of most of its recommendations.

During the process of consultation, some reservations were expressed about what were essentially matters of detail. Where there is variation from what the committee recommended, it is largely to take account of such reservations. However, the committee established a framework of principles for a new early-release system, and the provisions in the Bill are built upon that framework.

Part of the purpose of the new early-release provisions is to toughen the deterrent effect of sentences for serious crime. There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says--a fixed number of years in custody. The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle under

Column 239

supervision. The provisions of part I will ensure that those sentenced to four years or more will spend at least half the period in custody, and that all will have supervision on release, potentially to the end of the period determined by the court. An even more important change made by the Bill is to provide for the full outstanding portion of any sentence to be served, should the offender commit another offence punishable by imprisonment after his release, but before the full period specified in the sentence has elapsed. It is this measure that restores meaning to the full sentence of the court, and ensures that the deterrent effect of the sentence lasts for the full period intended by the court which passed it.

The provisions of part I also iron out a number of anomalies in the existing law. An important flaw in the existing system is that parole makes release at one third of sentence possible only for those serving longer determinate sentences. A prisoner serving 18 months or less must always serve at least two thirds of the sentence. A person convicted of serious offences may therefore serve a smaller proportion of his sentence than one convicted of a relatively less serious offence.

The new provisions address the paradox whereby, under the existing law, compulsory supervision is only available for adults released on parole, who by definition pose a low risk. At present, those released at two thirds of sentence having failed to obtain parole receive no supervision whatever. Yet these are the offenders who, by definition, are considered high risk.

The system of remission of up to one third of sentence as it now operates rules out the possibility of post-release supervision for those not granted parole. It also automatically devalues by one third the sentence passed by the court. Under the Bill, the concept of remission is abolished. The proposed new arrangements replace remission with the new concept of early- release entitlements, and address the other disadvantages of the existing arrangements. The fundamental elements of the new system are provided in clauses 1 and 16 of the Bill. Under clause 1, every determinate sentence prisoner will be required to serve at least half his or her sentence in custody. Long-term prisoners--defined in clause 27 as those serving sentences of four years or more--will be eligible for parole at half sentence. If not granted parole, they are to be released on licence--under supervision--after serving two thirds. All long-term prisoners will thus be subject to post-release supervision. Short-term prisoners--those serving less than four years--are to be released at half sentence with no automatic provision for post-release supervision. However, there is provision--in clause 14--for the courts to impose such supervision in certain cases. All prisoners serving determinate sentences, whatever the length of sentence, will be subject to the provisions in clause 16. Under those provisions, as I have already said, a person who commits a further imprisonable offence during the period between release from prison and the end of the full sentence will be liable to be returned to prison for the remainder of that sentence, regardless of any penalty which may be imposed for the new offence.

Clause 1 also re-enacts existing provisions applying to the release of life prisoners. Under these provisions, the Secretary of State may release a life prisoner provided he has consulted the judiciary and has a positive

Column 240

recommendation from the parole board. This retains the Secretary of State's ultimate discretion over the release of mandatory life prisoners--namely, those who have committed murder. Thus the crime of murder continues to be marked as uniquely serious in our law. Before a murderer can be released, it will continue to be the case that not only the parole board but the judiciary must give their views and the Secretary of State must be personally satisfied that release is appropriate. That is the safeguard which the public rightly expects in these difficult and sensitive cases.

Clause 2, however, introduces a new system for consideration of release in cases where the sentence of life has been passed not as a mandatory sentence, but as a maximum, expressly for the purpose of protecting the public. That new provision meets, for Scotland, the United Kingdom's obligation to change the law in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. A discretionary life prisoner is one on whom the court has imposed a life sentence partly as punishment for one or more offences and partly to protect the public. The ECHR judgment established that once the punitive grounds for the sentence no longer hold, the public risk ground is a matter which must be open to periodic review by a body having the status and constitution of a court.

Clause 2 provides for the court, when passing a discretionary life sentence, to determine by order the period for which the prisoner is to be detained on punitive grounds alone. At the end of that period, the prisoner will be entitled to periodic reviews of the continuing public risk grounds for his detention. For this purpose, we propose to bring forward rules under clause 20 whereby the parole board will be constituted and function as a court. If the board finds that it is no longer necessary for the safety of the public that the prisoner should continue to be detained, it will be able to direct his release on licence.

Having described at some length the main provisions in part I, I shall deal with the remainder.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : My attention is immediately attracted by the notion of the parole board operating as a court. Will it do so only in the limited respect made necessary by clause 2, or will the whole of the functions of the parole board be conducted as if it were a court? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the latter would give rise to certain potential consequences with regard to the way in which the decisions of the parole board may be capable of review in another place.

Mr. Lang : The parole board will operate as a court in the case of these non-mandatory life sentences, and only in the context of the risk to the public, after the punitive component of the sentence has been dealt with.

Dr. Godman : Under clause 21, what kind of person will be appointed to the position of parole adviser? Will that be a voluntary position undertaken by, say, members of local review committees, or will the post be an additional role taken on by members of the social work departments in prisons?

Mr. Lang : Persons appointed as parole advisers will be appointed on merit, taking into account their experience and their suitability to give advice to the parole board. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue that point in Committee.

Column 241

Clause 3 provides a new power to release a prisoner on licence at any stage of sentence if there are compassionate grounds for doing so. There are at present no satisfactory means of releasing, for example, a prisoner who becomes terminally ill or permanently disabled. If the case is very strong, I am able to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy on Her Majesty's behalf, but this is rarely appropriate. The parole board can intervene only if the prisoner is under parole review at the appropriate time, but it distorts the purpose of the board to expect it to recommend parole purely as a device to achieve release in these cases. The Kincraig committee, in highlighting the unsatisfactory nature of existing powers, recommended a new power, and clause 3 is based on its proposals. There will be consultation with the parole board about any proposal for compassionate release, provided time allows, but this will be designed to assist the Secretary of State to address the public risk. The initiative for compassionate release will remain with the Secretary of State and will not be delegated to the board. Clauses 4 to 9 deal with the application of the new early-release arrangements in particular circumstances or to particular classes of prisoner or detainee, including prisoners who are transferred to mental hospitals ; fine defaulters and those imprisoned for contempt of court ; young offenders and children ; and prisoners who are subject to deportation on release. So far as possible all classes of persons held in custody will have comparable early release entitlements, but there are certain important differences. One particular difference which I should like to highlight is that the release of children sentenced by the courts will be possible at any time, on the positive recommendation of the parole board. They will not have to wait for any particular proportion of sentence to elapse before release can be considered. Even children sentenced to less than four years will be supervised on release, thus taking into account the particular need for social work support for those who have committed crimes at a very young age.

Clause 10 sets out the conditions under which a life prisoner transferred to Scotland from another jurisdiction is to be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of clause 2. Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 17 deal with the duration and conditions of licences--in particular, the condition of compulsory social work supervision which will attach to all licences at the point of release--and with revocation of licences.

Clauses 14, 15, 18 and 19 provide for a new supervised release order to be imposed at the discretion of the courts on certain short-term prisoners, for the variation of such orders, penalties for breach of supervision requirements, and appeals.

The Kincraig committee recommended that there should be no compulsory supervision for those released from sentences of five years or less, but that was one of the few recommendations that attracted adverse comment. Concern was expressed about the need for post-release supervision of some shorter-term prisoners, especially those convicted of violent offences or offences against children. The provision for supervised release orders is designed to meet that concern.

Column 242

I shall describe a supervised release order as akin to a mini-probation order added to the end of the custodial part of a sentence. The order may be made by the sentencing court in passing a sentence of 12 months or more, but under four years. It will require the offender to comply with social work supervision on release from custody for a period not exceeding 12 months. The purpose of the order, as stated in the Bill, is to protect the public from serious harm. The circumstances in which a supervised release order should be made will be for the judicial discretion, but we envisage that it will be particularly appropriate in cases of sexual or violent offending. The offender who breaches the order will be dealt with by the court that made it, and may be returned to custody for the whole outstanding period of the order since the breach.

Clause 20 and schedule 2 provide for the continued existence of the Parole Board for Scotland. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already, in another place, paid tribute to the sterling work of the parole board and in particular its chairman for the past 12 years, Mrs. Jean Morris. One cannot speak too highly of the dedication, experience and care with which she and the other members of the board carry out their onerous duties. In addition to the re-enactment--with some modifications--of existing provisions relating to the board, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to delegate to the board, by order, the power to decide rather than advise on the release of specified classes of prisoner.

Clause 20 also empowers the Secretary of State to issue policy directions to the board which will clarify the basis for parole decisions. Expressly, the Bill provides that in giving his directions, the Secretary of State should have regard to the need to protect the public from serious harm from offenders, and the desirability of preventing the commission by offenders of further offences and of securing their rehabilitation. That provision gives public risk central prominence in the parole decision, as recommended by the Kincraig committee.

Clause 21 provides for the appointment of parole advisers, whose function-- as recommended by the Kincraig committee--will be to assist prisoners who otherwise might have difficulty in understanding the parole system or in expressing adequately any representations that they may wish to make to the board. The purpose of clauses 22 and 23 is to provide the Secretary of State with adequate powers in relation to the assignment and transfer of prisoners, and the temporary holding of young offenders in prisons.

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) : Clause 24 is the only one that refers to untried prisoners. As the Secretary of State is aware, a prison governor is responsible for the discipline of untried prisoners, but who is responsible for their safety? In Barlinnie prison in my constituency, two people have taken their lives and there has been one attempted suicide in the past nine months. Surely the Government are responsible for safety.

Mr. Lang : I am subject to later correction, but I anticipate that the governor is responsible for such matters within his prison. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about these sad cases in which, too often, young prisoners take their lives in trying and difficult circumstances.

Column 243

As I said earlier, the provisions in part II of the Bill would make a number of useful improvements in the law relating to both evidence and procedure in criminal proceedings. Clause 28 gives effect to recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its "Report on Evidence : Blood Group Tests, DNA Tests, and Other Related Matters". It provides a statutory framework for the taking during criminal investigations of fingerprints, impressions and other forensic samples.

Clause 29 and schedule 3 make provision for statements in business documents to be admissible in criminal proceedings. They also provide for copies of documents to be admissible as being equivalent to the originals. These provisions, which were moved in another place by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord Macaulay of Bragar, reflect work carried out by the Scottish Law Commission following publication of a discussion paper by the commission. It is thought that those provisions will serve to reduce the need for witnesses to attend court to give evidence which is otherwise contained in such documents.

Clause 30 makes provision to bring the law up to date in respect of the admissibility of evidence contained in audio or video recordings. Clause 31 provides, in effect, that the transcript of an interview between a customs officer and an accused person is to be received in evidence on the same basis as the transcript of an interview between a police officer and an accused person.

The purpose of clause 32 is to make it possible for evidence in solemn proceedings, whether in the High Court of Justiciary or before the sheriff, to be given from abroad by live television link, with appropriate safeguards. I should like to dispel any misunderstandings about the nature of this provision. It is not designed to enable video-taped evidence to be given in Scottish courts. The link would be live. The witness would be televised giving evidence in a courtroom abroad and the television monitor in Scotland would show live proceedings.

The provision could be used to benefit either the prosecution or the defence case. It is quite possible that the defence case could be reliant on testimony from a witness residing abroad, who could not be compelled to attend the court in Scotland. The provision is in no way biased towards the prosecution. Moreover, the provision embodies stringent safeguards for the rights of the accused. Either party may apply to the court for the use of a live television link, but if the application is by the prosecution, the court must be satisfied that it is not unfair to the accused. The court must also be satisfied that it is in the interest of justice, and that the evidence which the witness is able to give is necessary for the proper adjudication of the trial.

Similar provision has existed in England and Wales since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The law of Scotland has fallen behind in this area. It is right that the parties to a trial and their witnesses should be able to benefit from the use of modern technology, where it is in the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, it is a matter of concern that, as the House is aware, subsection (5) of clause 32 was added to the provisions in this clause in another place against the Government's advice and policy. It would preclude the taking of evidence from abroad by live television link in any proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991.

Column 244

In the Government's view, which I suspect many hon. Members will share, it is unacceptable that there should be different evidential provision for trials under that Act. It creates anomalies in the law of Scotland purely to meet concerns in another place about war crimes legislation. The principle of war crimes legislation has, however, been established by this House, and we do not intend to allow that question to be reopened by an indirect route. We therefore intend to bring forward an amendment to clause 32 to remove subsection (5). Many hon. Members hold strong views on the issues which arise in connection with clause 32 and will wish to take part in the debate on that amendment. Therefore, I propose to table the amendment on Report so that we may have a more open debate than would be possible in Committee. I trust that members of the Committee will feel able to exercise restraint so as not to anticipate or pre-empt debate on the amendment at a later stage. We hope and believe that, as a result of that debate, the message will go loud and clear to the other place that this House supports the clause in its original and unamended form.

Clauses 33 to 35 contain further provisions in relation to the giving of evidence by children in criminal proceedings. The broad aim of these provisions is to reduce the stress on children who are involved in such proceedings, while safeguarding--as we must--the rights of the accused.

Dr. Godman : The Secretary of State knows that I am keenly interested in clauses 32 to 35. Am I right in thinking that the whole of a child's evidence may be taken pre-trial ? If such a procedure is followed, a child need not attend the criminal trial.

Mr. Lang : That is my understanding. It would involve not just a child giving evidence but a child being cross-examined by the defence and the prosecution precisely in order to avoid the kind of stress that would result from bringing him or her to the courtroom in what could be difficult and stressful circumstances.

Clause 36 gives effect to the provisions in schedule 4 to the Bill, which further extend existing law on certificate evidence. Clause 37 clarifies the procedures for adjournment for inquiry in summary proceedings. Clause 38 extends existing provisions which enable a court to order a preliminary diet so that agreement may be reached before a trial on matters of evidence or other issues. Clause 39 makes provision for a judge sitting in solemn proceedings to deal with other business while the jury are considering their verdict. Clause 40 amends existing legislation so as to require courts to specify the date of commencement of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and to give reasons where such a sentence is not backdated to take account of time spent in custody before sentence. Clause 41, the last in part II, will enable the Crown to apply to the court to set aside a conviction where the prosecutor believes that the judgment on which that conviction is founded should not be maintained.

Provision for a number of additional procedural reforms is made in schedule 5 to the Bill.

I hope that this overview of the Bill has been helpful to the House. It is, as I say, a Bill whose basic intentions command cross-party support.

Dr. Godman : Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that he will, by way of the Bill, set up a visiting

Column 245

committee for the prison in Greenock? He will surely agree that visiting committees play an important part in managing tension and dealing with grievances within prisons and that the present circumstances in Greenock are wholly untenable. As Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said to me in a recent letter, that prison needs a visiting committee.

Mr. Lang : The Bill makes no provision for such matters because there is no need for a change in statutory arrangements to enable a visiting committee to be set up in Greenock. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue that matter in Committee, where he will have the opportunity to table amendments and speak to them. I share his view on the value of such committees and the desirability of having them.

In conclusion, I believe that the basic intentions of the Bill command cross-party support. I look forward to constructive and helpful debate which concentrates on the detail rather than on the basic principles of what we are trying to achieve. I commend the Bill to the House. It embraces a considerable number of small but immensely worthwhile reforms.

6.11 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the kind comments that he made at the start of his speech. I think that it was Harold Macmillan who once said that a few kind words in politics go a long way. I appreciate what the Secretary of State said. Perhaps on reflection he will feel that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the Special Standing Committee is at least worthy of consideration, as there is a great deal of support for it. I know that he replied to that suggestion off the cuff.

I welcome, as my hon. Friends will, the firmness that the Secretary of State showed over clause 32. The House having made its view on principle absolutely plain, it is right and reasonable that modern technology should be made available to assist the courts in reaching their conclusions.

The Opposition are pleased that the Bill has finally arrived at Second Reading but I am appalled at the length of time it has taken to reach this stage. Hon. Members will recall the timescale. The Kincraig committee first met in January 1988 and published its report in March 1989. The Government's response was produced in September 1990--over two years ago. In England and Wales, the main recommendations of the Carlisle report were incorporated in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which came into force on 1 October 1992. However, in Scotland we are still discussing the Kincraig report. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Parole Board for Scotland, in its annual report for 1991, felt so strongly that it "expressed its concern that the delay in implementing the recommendations of the Kincraig Report, published in March 1989, would lead to anomalies between the Scottish and English judiciaries and create uncertainty for those involved in the parole process." The incompetence in the Government's administrative approach has left Scotland yet again following behind England and Wales. Not only that, but the Bill proposes reforms that would benefit the whole prison system but

Column 246

that are left unimplemented. That cannot be good for our already overstretched prison system. I urge the Government to show considerably more vigilance on these important matters.

I find it surprising that, over this period, the Government have not found time for a debate on the report. The Opposition owe a great deal--we acknowledge it--to Lord Macaulay of Bragar, who had the matter raised in another place. We are thankful for his input in the Bill. Before I examine in detail the issues addressed in the Bill, I must qualify my initial pleasure at the fact that we have at last reached Second Reading. I think that many organisations involved in this sector agree that an opportunity has been missed--the opportunity to introduce a new Prisons Act to replace existing legislation. As many hon. Members will be aware, the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 simply consolidated earlier amendments to the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952, which was itself a consolidation of previous legislation. Therefore, we have a system operating on out-of-date legislation and one that is in desperate need of a thorough overhaul. The Secretary of State will know that there is much support for that view.

If the Government had taken the bold but necessary step of introducing a new Prisons Act, many wider issues of concern not included in this Bill could have been taken into consideration--issues such as prison legislation and prisoners' rights. The House will know that prison rules are, in the main, made by means of statutory instruments, which lack real heavyweight legislative status. Everyday life in prison for the prisoners is determined by prison administrators, without real public scrutiny. I was glad to read that the Government undertook to review the prison rules. I look forward to seeing a timetable for this, as this is clearly a much needed reform which would be greatly welcomed.

The basic principle of attempting to reduce the prison population in Scotland is highly desirable. This is all the more so because the prison population in Scotland is 5,350 as opposed to 4,750 some 12 months ago--a significant rise in such a short period. The considerable cost of imprisoning a person means that such a rise results in an expensive bill. It is interesting to note that the average sentence in 1950 was 30 days, but by 1985 this had increased to 241. The uneven distribution of population in Scottish prisons has caused the major problems of which we are all aware when we look at the incidents that have taken place over a long period and resulted in enormous strain on everyone concerned, not least prison staff. It may interest hon. Members to know that 40 per cent. of the Scottish prison population consists of fine defaulters. When it is considered that on average it costs about £12,000 to keep someone in prison for 12 months, I am sure that the House will agree that there must be better ways of dealing with fine defaulters and that we should be looking for opportunities to introduce and implement them. I welcome the attempts that have been made in framing the Bill to have a closer link between the length of sentence passed by the judge and the length of time spent in prison.

Next Section

Home Page