| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that no baby is born inside a prison, barring accidents, of course, where it cannot be avoided. All babies are born in hospitals outside of prisons.
Lord Winston: My Lords, that assurance from the Minister is received with gratitude but it does not go far enough. Can she tell us what provision is made for ante-natal care for women prisoners? These are women whose pregnancies are of a high risk nature. We now know that ante-natal influences can affect paediatric development. Can she tell us what ante-natal paediatric expert help there is in their care and what qualified obstetric care?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. All the needs of the pregnant mother are properly met. There are also facilities post-pregnancy. Some will be met within the prison through prison staff. Some will be met by visiting medical staff; for example, doctors come in each day to give check-ups. Some is external to the prison where the prisoner goes to an external hospital. No medical needs are neglected.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the 1950s and 1960s there was an assistant prison commissioner with responsibility for women prisoners and borstal girls? Is it the intention of the Government at least to consider restoring that position? I am not clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that a review is looking at the structure. Given that we have a unit and that there is a head of that unit with specific responsibility for women prisoners, who represent 4.3 per cent. of the prison population, I hope the House will agree with me that what really matters is the service
delivery on the ground at a local level. That is where our efforts must be, and not on some bureaucratic head of a service.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness's review look into the question in particular of Category A prisoners held in Holloway where the conditions are totally unsuitable for them? Is it possible for conditions in Holloway to be modified so that those who need to be kept there because they are on remand can enjoy civilised facilities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like the noble Lord to tell me what particular provision is not being made for Category A prisoners at Holloway or any other prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has given answers which reflect administrative arrangements rather than real care. I am sorry to say that but it seems to be the case. Is it not a fact that the scandals which have been made public in recent years, in particular of the shackling of women prisoners going to hospital and going into and enduring childbirth, have made it clear to the public that something other than the present administrative arrangements is necessary? Would it not be wise to look again at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, who reminded us that between 1943 and 1959 there was indeed a deputy commissioner of prisons responsible for all women prisoners and for policy in that area? Would it not be desirable to consider returning to that position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I am addressing is almost entirely the opposite. I am not talking about administrative arrangements. I am talking about having sound strategic and policy oversight. But the real executive management ought to be found at a local level. A particular instance was cited by the noble Lord. He will know that that practice was not approved of at a local level. It was very quickly remedied. A policy statement was put out by the Home Secretary on 18th January. No pregnant woman is shackled in hospital either during birth or from the time of her arrival at the hospital.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the interests of the child are obviously affected by this, can my noble friend say whether, if a birth occurs by misadventure inside the prison, it can be registered as having occurred outside the prison, following the precedent which is adopted in the case of death in the Palace of Westminster?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I need to check out a technical answer to my noble friend's question. It is the policy that no baby should be born in prison. For the particular reason my noble friend has given, we do not wish the address to be prison. I believe it is administratively possible in the case of any pregnant mother who may have started having the baby in prison for the address to be the hospital at which she would complete the medical treatment for that birth.
ODA: Fundamental Expenditure Review
3.19 p.m.
Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
-
What action they have taken following the fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept--and this is the last opportunity to say so--how much, in view of her own personal commitment, we have all felt for her in the steadily declining priority given by the Government as whole to overseas aid programmes, let alone the sad diversion of resources from poverty and development priorities, as evidenced in episodes like the Pergau Dam? Is it not unfortunate that when months ago the far-reaching fundamental expenditure review stated explicitly that the resources available to ODA were not adequate to cover its commitments and that prioritisation was essential, no considered strategic response by the Government was put before this House? Where do the Government stand on the recommendations for prioritising the 20 poorest countries, reducing commitments in regions like the Caribbean and cutting specific multilateral programmes? What consultations have there been with those adversely affected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Oh, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, really does not know what is going on! He will have to do a lot better than that because he has not bothered to find out. I have good news for him because today the report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the ODA, which extends to 160 pages, has been published. He will find in the blue section a great deal of information which will help him. I am sure that he will benefit from reading it. Further to that, perhaps I may tell him that we have been concentrating on the poorest countries and that is exactly what the outcome of the FER was. Assistance to the value of £175 million has gone to the 10 poorest countries. Eighty per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa and to South Asia. We have been concentrating on pumping in that development assistance from which countries can benefit, and will benefit by their own efforts as well as ours, as fast as we possibly can. In addition, we have the second highest combined private and official flows going into the developing world. It is 1.38 per cent. compared with the UN target of one per cent. of GNP. My officers in Scotland, London and across the world have done a fine job. It is beneath the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to criticise them. They have delivered better value for money than ever before. They are targeting it and have the common
sense to make sure that the money is applied where it can do most good in the poorest countries with the poorest populations.
Lord Judd.: My Lords, I certainly do not take second place to anybody in my appreciation of what the dedicated staff of the ODA do with their meagre resources. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If she accepts all the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review, she accepts that the resources are not adequate for the programme; that prioritisation is essential; and that the 20 poorest countries must be targeted in a way that they were not before. Does the Minister agree that it is no good reading off a lot of ad hoc statistics if she accepts, as she said she does, the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I was tempted not to respond, but maybe I should. Since the honourable Member in another place, Mr Gordon Brown, said that he would keep to this Government's expenditure programme, and since we are credited by OECD and all the other international organisations with having the best targeted and the best-delivered development programme in the world, I have no reason to apologise for what we have been doing with the resources which have been made available. Of course, we all wish to do more in many different areas of life, but we also know that, unless Britain continues to have a sound economy, as it will have under the next Conservative Government, we will not be able to do as much.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not having read the 165-page review published this morning. It is obviously a failing that we have on these Benches. Does the Minister foresee that the bilateral budget will be sufficient this year or, because of commitments to the European budget, will there have to be some topping up of the bilateral budget?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord knows, there is an undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that should the non-discretionary spending exceed the revised forecast, the Exchequer will meet the bill. That is a guarantee that we have never had before and it shows the importance that we attach to development. Any reductions in the baseline were fully attributed to the lower forecast of the UK's commitments to multilateral organisations, largely the European Union. So if the demands of the European Union or of other international bodies increase, the Treasury will have to go to the reserves. We will deliver no less than what we have planned. We have planned with great care and with the full co-operation of the governments we seek to help. I believe that is a good record and my staff can be proud of it.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |