House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Jan 1997 (pt 23)

Teachers (Morale)

13. Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to improve morale among schoolteachers. [11738]

Mrs. Gillan: The Government recognise the skill and dedication of the vast majority of teachers, and say so at every opportunity.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that the Government's insistence on placing the principles of competition and market forces at the heart of the education system has contributed to the reduction in teacher morale and that the continuing campaign on grant-maintained schools is an exacerbating factor? How will she ensure that information provided to parents by the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation in England and Wales when ballots are held is accurate and complete?

29 Jan 1997 : Column 358

Will she take it from me that at a meeting in my constituency last Monday night, parents, teachers and the public were widely convinced that they had been seriously misled by representatives of that organisation?

Mrs. Gillan: I cannot agree with a single word that the hon. Gentleman says. As far as the Government are concerned, high morale goes with good schools, and our policies for improving standards will also improve morale. I know what would be bad for my morale if I were a teacher: the prospect of a Labour Government, who would destroy grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and the assisted places scheme, attack independent schools, reverse the nursery voucher scheme and turn back all the progress that the Government have made on education. If I were a teacher, the prospect of a Labour Government would certainly destroy my morale.

Mr. Dover: Will the Minister accept that any low morale among schoolteachers in Lancashire is due to the fact that, in the past two years, the Government have provided an extra £45 million in education spending, but precious little of that has been passed down to the schools?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have increasingly, year on year, provided more funds for education, and the local education authorities should be answerable for how much of that money reaches the chalkface. The more that reaches our schools, the better it is for teacher morale.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that, only a few months ago, I brought a deputation from the city of Manchester to see one of her colleagues? We pointed out that the city had been starved of funds for building maintenance and that a £50 million deficiency had built up. Roofs are letting rain in, the electrics are deficient, new boilers are required and children have been evacuated from schools by bus because of the conditions. Will not that affect the morale of teachers and schoolchildren? It is happening up and down the country.

Mrs. Gillan: I should have thought that teachers' morale would have been enhanced because they were pleased by the local government funding settlement for 1997-98, which allows 3.6 per cent. more for education than in 1996-97. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his local education authority, which is responsible for the fabric of its schools. He should not ask the Government questions: he should ask his local education authority.

29 Jan 1997 : Column 357

29 Jan 1997 : Column 359

Hunger Strikers (Rochester Prison)

3.30 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (by private notice): To ask what action has been taken by the Home Secretary concerning hunger strikers at HMP Rochester.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Since 6 January, a number of immigration detainees in the detainee centre at HMP Rochester have been refusing regular prison food. Since that date, the number of those involved in the protest has fluctuated considerably. According to the prison, as of today, the number of those involved is 17, although that figure is subject to constant change.

Since Monday 27 January, a small number of the protesters have claimed to be refusing fluids. The most recent information indicates that there are currently six who are doing so. They are being held in the prison's health care wing.

Various arguments are advanced on behalf of the protesters. It is argued that asylum seekers who have committed no criminal offence should not be held in detention. It is also argued that immigration detainees should not be held in a Prison Service establishment. A third argument is that adequate safeguards do not exist in relation to the use of detention. In particular, it is claimed that detainees do not have adequate access to the legal system. Let me take those arguments in turn.

As the Government have repeatedly made clear, detention is used only sparingly and only for those who it is believed would otherwise abscond. At any one time, only about 1 per cent. of those with asylum applications outstanding will be held in detention. It is inescapable, however, that if we are to enforce the immigration laws effectively, some carefully targeted use of detention must be made. More than 80 per cent. of successfully effected removals have involved detention at some stage. If we are to remove failed asylum seekers, we cannot dispense with the targeted use of detention. Indeed, the experience of other comparable countries is the same. We give detainees full reasons for their detention. Initially, that is done orally, and, at regular intervals subsequently, it is done in writing. Both are done in a language that they understand.

It is a regrettable fact that some failed asylum seekers will not comply with their conditions of temporary admission unless we detain them. There is wide-scale abuse of our procedures, and the potential for absconding is real. It would increase significantly if there were no use of detention.

Secondly, the use of prison establishments to provide some of the detention spaces is also unavoidable, in current circumstances. A small number of detainees simply present control or security problems that are so severe that there can be no question whatever of holding them elsewhere.

Additionally, the Prison Service has for many years provided a significant number of detention spaces for general detainees. It currently provides about half the detention estate for all immigration detainees, but that percentage has fallen in recent years with the opening of the new immigration detention centres at Campsfield house in Oxfordshire and Tinsley house near Gatwick. Furthermore, a policy of greater concentration of

29 Jan 1997 : Column 360

immigration detainees in the Prison Service has successfully been implemented, with the bulk of such places now being provided by two establishments, Rochester and Haslar. Such accommodation is, of course, discrete from the rest of the prison.

Those in detention are not all there because they were detained at the port where they innocently asked for asylum. Thirty-four per cent. are illegal entrants, a small percentage are convicted criminals awaiting deportation, and others who absconded following an adverse decision will have had to be detained on detection. For example, among those involved in the fluids protests is one who has served a sentence of imprisonment for two convictions of indecent assault against children, was subsequently removed from the United Kingdom and then re-entered unlawfully. Another was detained by the police when found to be attempting further immigration deception. Nor is it so that many asylum seekers are held for inordinate periods. Of those involved in the fluids protests, half were detained either this month or last month.

Every effort is made to provide good facilities for immigration detainees. At Rochester, there are good physical education and library facilities, access to educational classes and the opportunity to pursue training courses. The greatest possible separation is maintained between immigration detainees and others who are held at Rochester. Detainees are held under remand conditions. They are, for example, allowed a two-hour visit each day from Monday to Saturday and all their varying dietary requirements are catered for. There is a well-equipped health care wing at Rochester, and detainees have access to medical care comparable to that which would be provided by a general practitioner to a member of the public.

On the question of safeguards, detention decisions, which are never taken lightly anyway, are reviewed at very frequent intervals and at senior levels in the immigration service. Moreover, detainees may in most circumstances seek bail or challenge their detention in the courts. Posters are displayed in detention centres giving details of sources of legal advice, and many detainees benefit from legal aid or from the services of statutorily funded organisations such as the Refugee Legal Centre or the Immigration Advisory Service.

The Government entirely understand the sensitivity that surrounds the detention of a small number of asylum seekers and other immigration cases. Detainees are always given priority in the immigration and nationality department, and a range of safeguards, including, of course, appeal to an independent adjudicator, are in place. Our objective is that, where detention is necessary, it should be for as short a period as possible, but arbitrary time limits would be incompatible with the fact that the need for detention to be extended often arises from circumstances beyond our control, such as attempts to stave off removal or, in dealing with a few countries, difficulties in securing documentation for a removable person.