House of Commons
Wednesday 24 January 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Women in Prison
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
9.34 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): Last week, at the very moment that the Home Secretary was announcing small changes to what many of us have described as the inhumane practice of shackling pregnant women prisoners while they are in labour, a woman prisoner suffering from breast cancer was lying in the Middlesex hospital manacled to two prison officers--one of whom was male--right up to the point when her radiotherapy treatment was due to commence.
One does not need much imagination to think of the scene--the woman in her white hospital gown waiting with other NHS patients for a sensitive and personal treatment while being shackled to a man. That is the reality, I suggest, of the policy that the Government now support.
Frances Crook, director of the Howard League, said when giving me information for the debate--information that I have checked out with the Prison Service and the hospital:
She added that all hon. Members should question the Minister closely as to exactly who should and who should not be shackled.
Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston):
The Home Secretary has given way a little in relation to women who are in hospital to give birth, but does my hon. Friend agree that this half loaf--or one slice of bread--is totally inadequate? The Home Secretary has not addressed the issue of women who are breast-feeding, and has not addressed the issue of antenatal care. During pregnancy, all women are particularly vulnerable to stress and anxiety, and there is proof that that has an effect both on the foetus and on the baby for many years after birth. Does my hon. Friend agree that shackling should be discontinued during pregnancy?
Mrs. Mahon:
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, who puts her case very well. I have some questions in a similar vein from the Maternity Alliance that I shall put to the Minister later in the debate. As joint chairman of the all-party breast cancer group, I have taken a considerable interest in women and how they feel. I have talked to many women who suffer from breast cancer,and I have listened as they described their terror at being
If such treatment is cruel, other cases of shackling that have been drawn to my attention border on the farcical or the downright dangerous. A report in the Daily Mirror gave details of patients who were chained to officers when attending hospital for treatment for pneumonia, cancer and other serious illnesses. But would you believe, Madam Speaker, that one case which was reported--and which I have pursued--was of a woman suffering from dysentery being shackled? As everybody knows, it is an infectious, notifiable disease. Some poor unsuspecting prison officer had to be shackled to someone suffering from it, so possible cross-infection is obviously considered a price worth paying to support the Government's "prison works" policy.
If the officer went down with dysentery, surely that would not be a price worth paying. The practice is mediaeval. When the woman was not chained to the prison officer, she was chained to the bed. We all know that people suffering from dysentery need to use the toilet frequently, so that woman would have been most uncomfortable hopping in and out of bed with chains on.
Except in the most exceptionally high-risk cases, the practice of manacling smacks more of the Home Secretary's Soviet style and gulag mentality towards the penal system rather than the policy of a Home Secretary in a modern democracy as it approaches the millennium. It is high time to end a shameful and degrading practice. High-risk women prisoners and other women who have simply been imprisoned because of a minor misdemeanour should not be treated in the same way.
The number of women imprisoned is not high. According to the latest figures that I received on18 January, the current prison population stands at 51,584,of whom 2,024 are women. That figure peaked in December, when the highest female prison population, 2,150, was recorded. The latest published Home Office statistics about prison populations relate to 1993, so when we speak about the reasons for women's imprisonment and the percentage of women in gaol, we are working on old statistics.
In 1993, 37 per cent. of those imprisoned were fine defaulters, and 22 per cent. were in for theft and handling stolen goods. Those statistics also reveal that women are sent to prison mainly for minor offences. In June 1993, 39 per cent. of women in prison had no previous convictions. That seems to be the trend.
Women seem to get sentenced more often for first offences than men. During that year, just 26 per cent.of women who were held in prison on remand subsequently received prison sentences. The 74 per cent. released back into the community were either found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. I wonder whether any of those women were manacled or treated in an inhumane way.
Those statistics give the lie to the recent statement by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)--I am sorry he is not present--in a recent intervention on the Home Secretary:
The figures show that that is nonsense. I do not believe that the 37 per cent. of women prisoners who are fine defaulters are dangerous, liable to abscond, or a threat to anyone. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognise that, and not make such a fatuous statement.
Fourteen prison establishments hold women, of which eight are closed prisons. It is current policy for girls as young as 15 to be held in prisons with adult women.The average cost of keeping a woman in prison is £541a week--again according to the 1993 statistics. That figure does not include the cost of prison headquarters, so the total cost is higher.
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Conservative Back Bencher to seek advice from civil servants in the course of a debate? Will that facility be available to all hon. Members?
Madam Speaker:
It is most unusual for a Back-Bench Member to seek information from civil servants unless, of course, that Member has been asked by a Minister to do so. That is not the case now, and therefore that Back Bencher should not be seeking information from Government civil servants. I had not noticed, and I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)for bringing it to my attention.
Mr. Boateng:
I am much obliged, Madam Speaker.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for my action. I was checking the detail of an address with the civil servants, but I accept your reprimand.
Mrs. Mahon:
A high percentage of women are in prison because they are fine defaulters or have not paid for a television licence. In 1993, 7.5 per cent., or 278 women, were imprisoned for the non-payment of television licence fees or fines related to that. I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who has tabled early-day motion 287 on the imprisonment of television licence fine defaulters. He should be commended on his campaign to argue that it is an absolute waste of time and shocking to imprison such people.
That early-day motion states:
and single parents. It is impossible to quantify the harm and distress caused to a family when the mother, often the only parent, is taken away and incarcerated, perhaps for weeks, while the children are taken into care.
The Home Secretary has slickly informed the Tory party conference that prison works, but it does not work for the children of women imprisoned for fine defaulting, and whose only crime is to be poor. It does not work for the taxpayers, either; they might lose £86.50 on the television licence that goes to the Exchequer, but will fork out £541 a week for prison lodgings. That cost does not take into account the thousands of pounds extra that is spent on keeping children in local authority care.
The Home Secretary would be wise to start watching programmes such as "Coronation Street". West Yorkshire probation service has issued a news release noting:
Elly Phillips, the debts and benefits adviser forWest Yorkshire probation service, has drawn attention to the absolute outrage revealed in that programme:
on top of that, it costs the taxpayer money--
"The Home Secretary had given the clear impression that the shackling of women attending hospital would be discouraged."
"every one of those women is either a convicted criminal or has been remanded in custody by a court which considers them to be dangerous or likely to abscond".--[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 898.]
24 Jan 1996 : Column 267
"people prosecuted for TV licence evasion tend to be disproportionately poor, female, unemployed"
"As Coronation Street's Trish is sent to prison after being caught without a television licence . . . many real life women are in prison for the same reason."
24 Jan 1996 : Column 268
"A woman who cannot afford to pay her television licence is no more likely to be able to pay a Court fine. If she is then sent to prison the licence fee and the fine are still unpaid"--
"When we are talking about a mother the result is even worse: her children are often taken into care, like Trish's son Jamie, so they become the innocent victims of the system."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |