| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the banks help people who are in such dire straits?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a need for support for the entire economic structure of these industries from those who deal with them and from the Government. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is going to Brussels tomorrow to make clear the British Government's desire to act to restore market confidence in British beef.
Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU ban on British beef is unfair, unjustified and unwarranted, and that it owes more to commercial considerations than it does to any medical reason?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes a very important point which has been made during the debate by my hon.
Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill),for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Newark(Mr. Alexander), and by others. It is underlined by the wording of the press release put out by Commissioner Fischler, who said:
- "the evidence suggests that even should there be a link to BSE and CJD the risk to human health has been eliminated or at worst reduced to a minimal level".
That is why it is the Government's view that the ban is unjustified and why my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has made it clear that it is an objective of British policy to see that it is removed. That is also why my right hon. and learned Friend has welcomed the fact that in the same press release, Mr. Fischler stresses that the Commission is ready to assist the UK both in terms of support to stabilise the beef market and in terms of further control measures against BSE.
Mr. Salmond:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Dorrell:
My right hon. and learned Friend is going to Brussels to take forward the Government's commitment to discuss measures to support the British beef market. That is a clear commitment and my right hon. Friend will carry it forward tomorrow.
Mr. Salmond:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Dorrell:
I have only another 10 minutes and I have some other important points to make in responding to the debate. [Hon. Members: "Four minutes."] I should have said four minutes. My mathematics is improving as my speech continues.
I have asked representatives of the British food retailing industry to come to the Department of Health tomorrow. Thus while my right hon. and learned Friend is conducting discussions with the Commission in Brussels which are designed to restore market confidence in the British beef industry, I shall be conducting discussions with food retailers in this country to ensure that we understand clearly the steps that are necessary to restore the confidence that every one of us wants to see restored.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeing the food retailers. Would he--
Mr. Salmond:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to give way
Madam Deputy Speaker:
It is entirely at the discretion of the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way or to whom he gives way.
Mr. Couchman:
Will my right hon. Friend remember, while he speaks to the retailers, the food manufacturing industry, including the pie factory in my constituency which makes 60 million pies a year--a third of all British frozen pies? Will he remember that such firms also face a crisis?
Mr. Dorrell:
My hon. Friend raises a key interest.He has pursued it tirelessly with both my right hon. and learned Friend and me, and I assure him that it will also be represented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster stressed the importance she places on bringing forward the meeting of European vets planned for six weeks' time. It is an objective of my right hon. and learned Friend in his discussions with the Commission to ensure that we are in a position whereby that meeting can be brought forward.
My right hon. and learned Friend also made it clear to the House in his opening speech that not only are we taking the steps necessary to rebuild the confidence of the beef consumer and reopen the market, but we are introducing in the House measures to support the restructuring of the rendering industry and to introduce a calf slaughter premium. My right hon. and learned Friend has also undertaken to examine other measures necessary to support the rural economy connected with the beef industry.
All those measures were welcomed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, for which I am grateful. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) stressed the importance of research, and I assure him that that emphasis is entirely supported by the Government.
I shall conclude with another point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall made, about the importance of building a national approach to a national problem. If that approach is diluted or upset by the conduct of narrow party political arguments--
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Women in Prison
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak):
This debate was originally due to take place on 6 March, after a scheduled one-and-a-half hour debate on the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. However, the motion for that debate was not moved, largely because the Minister responding to the previous debate on community care finished 10 minutes earlier than expected.
It is interesting to speculate why on that occasion the Minister took only eight minutes to reply to a five-hour debate. All I know is that there was considerable media interest in the issue of women in prison, and the feedback that I received suggested that there was considerable nervousness on that day about the spotlight being put on the Prison Service.
My sources say that a relatively quiet period for the women's prison service had been transformed in a matter of days into a crisis because expected places at Eastwood Park, which had suddenly become famous as the "battery hen" prison, did not become available. We shall probably never know whether my debate was deliberately scuppered by the Government, but at least we are now here at a reasonable time of night.
I wanted to give this subject another airing because of the continuing concern about the increase in the female prison population and the conditions in which people are housed. I hope that the Minister of State will be prepared to demonstrate an objective approach to the humanitarian and practical issues concerning female offenders.
The Minister is on record as having said that, as well as punishment, an important role for the Prison Service is the rehabilitation of offenders. I echo her comments on the BBC programme "Question Time" on 29 February, when she said that she needed to make no apology for taking out of circulation people who prey on the general public. I agree that serious and persistent offenders should be gaoled, but I hope that tonight she will acknowledge the fact that the public would be better served if fewer female petty offenders were given custodial sentences. That would give the Prison Service more scope to pursue its work in the rehabilitation of more serious offenders.
I understand that the female prison population this month is about 2,100--an increase of about 40 per cent. over the past two to three years, and more than double the numbers incarcerated 20 years ago, when it was predicted that in future fewer women would be given prison sentences.
The flippancy with which the Home Office has reacted to that huge increase is illustrated by the written answer by the other Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), to my question asking about the increase in the number of women sent to prison, and requesting his assessment of the reasons for that increase. He wrote:
One might expect from that information that we are in the midst of an epidemic of crime committed by women, but the number of convictions for indictable offences has
steadily declined from 47,500 in 1987 to 39,500 in 1994. Violent offences have also gone down from a peak in 1989. The figures show not a rising tide of female crime but a greater readiness to imprison women. The result is overcrowding and inhumane treatment, as has been graphically recorded in recent months.
In December, the new chief inspector of prisons,Sir David Ramsbottom, pulled his inspection team out of Holloway. The team included a past governor of that establishment. Sir David reported that prisoners were being locked up 23 hours a day. Prisoner officers complained that they were being forced into acting like 18th-century turnkeys. Conditions were reported as extremely dirty. The Minister of State admitted that she had visited the prison six months previously.
More recently, newspaper reports emerged of "battery hen" cells, measuring 6 ft by 6 ft, or 8 ft by 8 ft--that is debatable--at Eastwood Park, which have been described by zoo managers as conditions that would drive even animals mad. I know that we can take newspaper hyperbole with a pinch of salt, and perhaps prisoners transferring from tatty dormitories at Pucklechurch might consider their brand new cells an improvement. However, is the Minister prepared to defend such conditions, when women might be locked up in their cells for 14 hours a day, and perhaps more, as at Holloway, particularly in view of forthcoming budget cuts?
Can the Minister imagine prisoners on basic regimes allowed free association on only two evenings a week, spending their time lying on their beds, their heads inches from their toilet bowls? Does she find that acceptable?A prison officer has been quoted as saying, "I feel like a concentration camp guard." Although it is acknowledged that about a third of the women moving into Eastwood Park are likely to be mentally ill or suffering from a personality disorder, and many have a history of sexual abuse, the health care centre has only 10 cells for an eventual population of 135 prisoners. It seems appropriate at this point to mention the 1991 Home Office study which showed that 56 per cent. of female sentenced inmates were mentally ill. We surely have to ask ourselves whether those women's experiences in prison are likely to help or to hinder their rehabilitation.
For example, does the indiscriminate use of restraints for prisoners who are sick or vulnerable help? I am sure that the recent furore about the unnecessary shackling of female prisoners in labour will be remembered by the Minister of State for many years to come. Just as that died down, after new guidelines were issued, another story emerged of a woman shackled by two prisoner officers throughout the funeral service for her 10-day-old baby. That woman was obviously not a security risk; she had been allowed to visit her baby in the neonatal intensive care unit at Great Ormond Street hospital without handcuffs or chains. What sort of reign of terror is the Minister presiding over that leads prison staff to abandon all sense of common decency?
The Royal College of Nursing has specifically requested that I raise that issue with the Minister. I hope that she will agree to its call for an urgent review of the use of restraints for female prisoners. It is a tragedy that high-profile escapes of dangerous male prisoners should have resulted in such inhumane treatment of women, who, as an analysis of the prison population shows, are not a danger to society.
Of the 2,000-plus female prisoners, only between260 and 270 have been convicted of crimes of violence. As many as 35 per cent. of women prisoners are first-time offenders, compared with 12 per cent. of men. Although only 11 per cent. of men convicted of theft are gaoled, the figure for women is 23 per cent.
As I have said, most of the recent increase in the female prison population is attributable, first, to the increase in the numbers of females sent to prison and, secondly, to the more recent trend of imprisoning women with convictions for theft and fraud, many of whom are in multiple debt, have dependent children and would be better and more constructively punished in the community.
Considerable concern has also been expressed at the large number of women fine defaulters who are gaoled, not because they wilfully refuse to pay but because they are poor. Since 1984, gaol for non-payment of fines has increased by 63 per cent. for women, but by only 5 per cent. for men. There is plenty of evidence that magistrates are failing in their duty to use prison only as a last resort, and even to abide by their own guidelines. Research--including that carried out by the Home Office--shows that the overwhelming majority of fine defaulters are people struggling to live on benefits. A dossier of cases compiled by Rona Epstein of Coventry university demonstrates that, despite their poverty, many fine defaulters make considerable efforts to pay off their debts but their cases receive cursory attention in the courts, with many magistrates regarding the application for deductions from benefit as creating too much paperwork.
Home Office figures show that, nationally, only about 2,000 women on income support have fines deducted from benefits. An alternative ostensibly open to magistrates is to impose a money payment supervision order, yet the use of that measure has declined dramatically. Last week, the justices' chief executive from Wolverhampton told me that the probation service was not actioning MPSOs, with the result that this was not an option for the court. Will the Minister take action to put that right? That action must include ensuring that there are adequate resources for the probation service.
As I have mentioned on many occasions in the House, the courts in England and Wales--unlike their counterparts in Scotland--do not have the option of imposing community service for fine defaulters. It is now more than a year since I raised this matter with the Home Secretary, and I was pleased to see the recent publicity revealing a change of heart from his initial dismissive attitude. I hope that the Minister will announce real progress tonight, because there is plenty of evidence that magistrates are out of touch with the realities of life for people on poverty incomes, whose numbers--unfortunately--have increased dramatically in the past decade or so.
Although there are examples of good practice within magistrates courts--I would, for example, commend the South Gloucestershire petty sessional division--magistrates frequently make unreasonable demands for sums of £5 or £10 a week from people whose total income is not much more than £50. But the House should not just take my word for it--hon. Members should listen to a
quote from an affidavit from Mrs. P. M. Allen andG. W. Catteral, Esq., magistrates from Wigan, about the case of Debra Fitzmartin:
The magistrates ended up issuing a new warrant, committing Debra Fitzmartin to prison for a term of21 days. This imprisonment was declared unlawful by the High Court in December 1995.
What troubles me is that no penalty, no inquiry, no retraining or no public censure is imposed on magistrates--there is absolutely nothing. They are carrying on with the same attitudes today.
Take also the case of Ann, a 25-year-old widow, whose husband committed suicide after being made redundant in January 1993. She was living on income support, with two children aged eight and six. She suffers from severe depression and has attempted suicide. At a hearing before Mold magistrates in respect of poll tax arrears, she told the court of her problems. The magistrates imposed a prison sentence of 28 days, suspended on payment of£10 a week. Not surprisingly, she found that difficult to pay, asked for deductions at source from her income support, and believed that £5 a week was being deducted. However, on 10 November 1995, she was arrested and taken to Risley prison, having been told that there had been a hearing in her absence on 3 November at which she had been committed to prison. After spending four days in gaol, she was released on bail and applied for judicial review.
A series of cases have been taken to judicial review, which shows that magistrates are breaching their powers in committing fine defaulters to gaol. Since the abandonment of the system that made magistrates take into account people's income when setting the level of fine, poor people have been expected to pay sums that are completely beyond their means and further exacerbate their already parlous financial circumstances. Despite their poverty, it is amazing that many fine defaulters make considerable efforts to pay off their debts.
Let us consider the example of a woman in Calderdale who, in June last year, was sentenced to 16 days' immediate imprisonment for poll tax default. She is a 40-year-old married woman with four young children--the youngest is one year old. Since the birth of the youngest, she has suffered from a heart condition and
general ill health, and in January 1995 had a stroke which caused paralysis. She was in a wheelchair for five months. She tried to pay off arrears, as ordered by the magistrates, but after making some payments had a stroke and entered hospital. She told the magistrates of her ill health and asked for deductions from her income support, but they committed her to prison immediately.
There is even an example of one woman who was imprisoned for a day at Risley when 74p remained outstanding from a £48 fine for theft. I have here the warrant, which clearly states the amount outstanding as 74p.
Rona Epstein's research, which I drew to the attention of the House more than a year ago, confirms that there are many unlawful committals, for example, of women with debts of less than £200, who have been gaoled for more than the prescribed seven days.
Of course, many of the sentences may be considered to be quite short, which means that, although around a third of prison receptions are for fine defaulters, the prison population of such people at any one time is quite small. Those short sentences should not, however, be dismissed as trivial in terms of their effect on people's lives. They may have devastating effects on the imprisoned debtor and her children.
It is now nearly two years since I introduced a Bill that would have removed the power of magistrates to gaol fine defaulters for culpable neglect. No one would argue against gaol as the ultimate sanction for people who have the money but wilfully refuse to pay, but I hope that I have demonstrated that many fine defaulters, particularly women, do not come into that category.
Our women's prisons are bursting at the seams, not because there are more criminals--their numbers have gone down--but because petty offenders and fine defaulters are increasingly being sent to gaol, where they will come into contact with the drug culture that pervades those institutions. According to Judge Tumim, they go in as shoplifters and come out as drug addicts. Public money is being wasted. It costs more than £500 a week to send someone to gaol and lives are thrown into disarray by the policy.
10 pm
"Some 2,952 women were sentenced to immediate custody in 1994, compared with 2,158 in 1992 . . . The reason for the increase . . . is the rise in numbers sentenced to custody by the courts."--[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 266.]
"Since the last hearing the defendant had paid only a total of£10 resulting in the 21 day term being unaffected. Mr. Rigby then informed the Bench of the contents of Debra Fitzmartin's letter before the Court today. Her written response was to ask the Court to once more grant her a further opportunity to pay, by again postponing the issue of the committal warrant. She had referred once more to her difficulties in making payments due to being a single mother coping with two children, and also that she was now pregnant and experiencing some haemorrhaging resulting in her having to attend her local hospital. She also requested that the arrears outstanding be deducted from her Income Support benefits. Mr. Rigby informed us that case law permitted a committal warrant being issued in a defendants absence provided a means inquiry had previously been held in the presence of the defendant . . . Taking everything that had been stated in open court into consideration, we were advised by the Clerk that we had to decide if there was before us a sufficient change in Debra Fitzmartin's circumstances so as to justify not issuing the committal warrant. We decided that although there had been a slight change in that she was now expecting a third child and experiencing some difficulty in that pregnancy, such did not amount to a sufficient change. We also concluded that to instruct the Local Authority to withdraw today's proceedings and arrange a deduction from her Income Support benefit was inappropriate in all the circumstances."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |