| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.1 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye): Thank you,Mr. Deputy Speaker--I shall attempt to be brief.
I am sure that, when the hon. Member for Halifax(Mrs. Mahon) applied for the debate, she had in mind principally the repugnant case of shackling women while they give birth. All of us would agree that not only women, but men, had a very emotional reaction to that repugnant spectacle, and none of us could cope with the concept. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to bring that practice to an end.
The hon. Lady detailed at length the number of women who go to prison, and many of the offences for which they do so. She said that there are only just over 2,000 women in prison; it is also worth while saying that59 per cent. of women are cautioned for indictable offences, compared with 36 per cent. of males. Clearly, attempts are made to keep women out of prison where possible.
In addition, the average sentence for women is about half that of men, so the courts clearly recognise that,for most offences, women should be sentenced to prison for only a brief period. It has become fairly clear over many years that, by and large, courts do not like to send women to prison, and do so only when that is the only recourse left to them due to the nature of the offence or because the women themselves--
Mr. Boateng:
Does not the hon. Lady realise that,on the Home Office's own figures, women are more likely than men to be sent to prison--and for longer--for minor offences? Does that not have implications, not only for her argument, but for sentencing policy generally? Should we not be doing something about it?
Mrs. Lait:
Having sat in magistrates courts when women have come before them, and having talked to many magistrates about the lengths to which they go to try to avoid sending women to prison, I know that that is the key to the argument. When a court concludes that the only solution is to send a woman to prison, it is for very good and clear reasons, and I support the court's right to do so.
The hon. Lady spoke of the attempts made in prison to rehabilitate women. On the rare occasions on which I have visited women's prisons, I have been impressed by the way in which prison officers work with the prisoners to give them the life skills that so many of them lack. Those
skills include how to manage budgets and how to look after children. Many of the women who unfortunately find themselves in prison are not as competent at managing their affairs as many of us would wish.
It is also reasonable to consider the history of escapes from hospitals, which is what prompted the debate.The figures are interesting: in 1991-92, there were14 escapes by women prisoners; in 1992-93, there were 13 escapes; in 1993-94, there were nine escapes;in 1994-95, there were six escapes; and in 1995-96, there were just two. Escapes from hospitals over those same years are four, eight and five. In 1994-95, there were no escapes, and in 1995-96 there were none.
One of the principal policies of the prison service, whether the Home Office prison service or the agency, should be to prevent escapes--the prison service has clearly succeeded in doing so.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey):
Does the hon. Lady think that the brutality--which has been described and at which she expressed horror at the beginning of her speech--of chaining women prisoners is worth the saving in terms of escape figures, which are relatively minor, anyway? Does she think that the brutality and anger are worth that result?
Mrs. Lait:
The hon. Lady will realise that the Home Secretary has said that women in labour will no longer be chained. Seven prisoners who were either pregnant or who had just given birth have escaped from hospital. It was not our decision or a Home Office decision to chain women:it was an operational decision, and the Home Secretary has now instructed that it should not happen again. Let us sincerely hope that we do not witness the spectacle of women who are pregnant or just about to give birth escaping from hospital. The Prison Service should look for the best way to meet that target.
I have mentioned the difference between operational decisions and Home Office decisions. On the subject of women in hospital, we all know that, while those in the Prison Service are hard-working and have tremendous commitment, they are not known for their imagination.It was probably the lack of imagination that led to the policy of chaining women. Now that that policy has been abandoned, I hope that more sensible and imaginative ways will be found to ensure that women do not escape.
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan):
Does my hon. Friend accept that it has never been Home Office policy to shackle women in labour?
Mrs. Lait:
It has never been Home Office policy,but an operational decision was made by the next steps agency to restrain prisoners outside prison from April 1995--I think that that is why many people have accused the Prison Service of lacking imagination, and I suggest that the problem arose there.
That problem has been remedied by an instruction from the Home Secretary, and, I hope, some imagination will now be applied to the issue of restraining prisoners effectively when they are outside prison, so that, while there are no more escapes, we are not faced with the repugnant spectacle of women in labour being chained to their beds. That is the key to ensuring that the Prison Service can make progress and achieve its aims and the targets that it has been set.
Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth):
The debate must be placed in the context of the Government's recent problems concerning the care of pregnant women in prisons, which we all have in mind. What an embarrassment that matter has been for the Government. How costly it has proved. It was obviously a contributory factor in the decision of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and my hon.Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon(Miss Nicholson) to cross the Floor of the House, giving the very strong impression of a Conservative party that was split and falling apart. That latter impression has not been corrected by the performance of Ministers at the Dispatch Box in recent weeks.
Having for months brazenly bluffed their way through with categoric denials of the allegations made by Opposition Members, Ministers have been exposed and humbled. I do not blame them for not knowing from personal experience what was going on. They were fed inaccurate information by the people on whom they relied. I assume that someone in the Prison Service continues to smart from the fury of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), when she was forced to carry the can for their mistakes.
The question now is whether we can be sure that the official information that will no doubt be the basis for the Minister's response today is as good, as accurate and as reliable as it should be.
When the issue of pregnant women and new mothers was at its height, I was struck by the number of newspaper commentators who wrote, "What do those women expect? They did not go to prison for a rest cure." Those callous words from poisonous pens were revealed more starkly because, at that very time, the Government were conceding their errors. I should add, however, that those poisonous pens were not all directed at those who were in prison. Some of them were, and have been, directed at the Minister.
On Monday night, my wife telephoned me. She said, "May I read you a letter? I am incensed by an article that I read in the Manchester Evening News, attacking the Minister, and I hope that it will not cause you any political problems if I write in, defending her."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe):
Good.
Mr. Davies:
I said, "All right. Read me the letter."The attack that was made on the Minister was indeed couched in the most personal terms, ignoring the political arguments entirely--an argument that would not have been presented against a male Minster. I said, "Fine; send it in."
When I spoke to my wife yesterday, she said, "I feel much better. I have sent it off. Sometimes I write these letters and never send them." I said, "That's fine. Are you
going to start defending me against some of the attacks made on me in the papers?" She said, "No; you are attacked too often--day in, day out. I can't afford the pen and the paper to defend you."
We can be sure that some of those self-righteous authors will not retract their views, despite the evidence presented today by the hon. Member for Halifax(Mrs. Mahon).
There are more women in prison than ever before--about 1,800--yet, when one considers the reasons that they are there, and especially the enormous proportion, about 47 per cent., who are in prison for defaulting on fines, it is impossible not to question whether there are not more effective ways of ensuring that justice is done and the community served.
Neither I nor the Liberal Democratic party take a soft view toward real criminals. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Halifax. Hon. Members will understand that, as the representative of Saddleworth, I have no problem with the idea that a woman sentenced to a life sentence for a crime that at other times would have deserved a capital punishment should indeed serve a sentence for life.
However, the obscenity must be ended of many women--many of whom are inadequate or impoverished, driven to extremes, but who have struggled to keep families together, making do on limited resources with no help from a partner, if any worthwhile partner exists--ending up in prison for fine default or for being unable to pay for a television licence.
A sentence in such cases may be only seven days, and to a judge that may seem nothing more than a slap on the wrist, but seven days to the person involved--especially if they have never been in prison--means humiliation and despair beyond belief. It means kids taken into local authority care, and costs to all members of the local community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |