UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1986

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 1986 Point of Order about Child Pornography and Abuse

    Below is the text of the point of order made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, in the House of Commons on 17 February 1986.

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) last week. Was it in order for him to pass on information which he had received privately about allegations of child sex and pornography on a council estate in my constituency? I raise this point of order because he received a letter from a constituent of mine, as I did, making allegations about a large number of people in my constituency, involving child pornography and abuse.

    I wholly deplore child pornography or abuse, and I think that the best way to deal with these matters is through proper and sensitive investigation, which was going on at the time. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth chose, last Thursday, to make a statement to the Press Association, which appeared later in The London Standard. The effect was to make any inquiries difficult to follow, and the estate was besieged by the media, seeking salacious gossip and stories.

    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth will, in the light of the investigations that have taken place, withdraw the statement that he made, visit that estate and apologise in person to the tenants, to whom he has caused a great deal of personal insult and hurt in the past few days.

    I have raised this point of order because constituents of mine are extremely upset by the fact that an hon. Member from another part of the country should behave in such an irresponsible and disgraceful manner, which is not in the best interests of the tenants of that estate, or of the cause that he purports to support.

  • David Mellor – 1986 Speech on Acklington and Castington Prisons

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mellor, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 17 February 1986.

    I welcome the interest which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has consistently shown in these two establishments and his acknowledgement tonight of their constructive relationship with the local community, which I also welcome. I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the matters which he raised, and I shall try to deal with as many of them as I can in the time available. In the event that I fail to deal with all of them, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about any outstanding matters.

    May I begin with Castington youth custody centre. Castington’s security and control record is good. There has not been an escape from the youth custody centre since April 1983. That occasion, when three inmates escaped and were recaptured, has been the only escape since it was opened in January 1983.

    However, there have been several incidents. Last year, there were two short lived and passive demonstrations. In the first, 37 trainees refused to leave the association area at lock-up and remained there for about an hour. On the second occasion, 18 trainees made a similar gesture, although that one lasted for only a few minutes.

    In addition, during 1985, there were 20 incidents involving 45 inmates in which cells were barricaded or ​ damaged. A further relatively minor case occurred on Friday. Most of them were confined to barricading the doors and damaging cell equipment, but on the night of 28 June 1985, three trainees broke through the walls of their cells and climbed on to the roof of their wing.
    During 1985 there were three further occasions when inmates broke through the walls of their cells in that way. I am glad to say that there have been no more since the new year. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the courage and professionalism shown by staff in dealing with those incidents.

    The strengthening of cells would seem to be called for in the light of what has happened. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the national chairman of the Prison Officers Association wrote to the Department in October, expressing his members’ anxiety about the position. The Department’s reply last month explained that the cell walls had been constructed of low density concrete blocks which were of the usual current standard for youth custody centres such as Castington. There have not been comparable problems on the same scale at other centres, and I do not believe that we would be justified in applying a general increase in standards because of problems at Castington. Moreover, because of the population pressures generally within the prison system we cannot contemplate the wholesale temporary removal of prisoners at Castington to carry out regrading work to the cells.

    We are, and would have to be on the facts, worried about the position at Castington. We have strengthened the walls of eight cells by the application of robust steel mesh covered with concrete. We are considering the possibility of similarly upgrading a few additional cells in each wing to provide the governor with a flexible amount of accommodation in which to put troublesome trainees. I hope that that is a step in the right direction.

    We are also about to embark on a programme of welding together the constituent parts of the beds in each cell and anchoring them to the floor.
    In the two wings to be opened later this year, cells have been provided with doors that can open outwards to prevent barricading. That will deny inmates the lime in which to cause serious damage, let alone penetrate the cell wall. I hope that the work will go a long way towards eliminating the problems that the governor and his staff have experienced.

    The current control position is that, following each incident, the appropriate disciplinary action was taken. The position is being monitored by the regional director. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the governor and the staff have devoted considerable effort to the creation of a positive relationship with the inmates. Recent months have seen reductions in offences against discipline and a more relaxed atmosphere.

    Castington already keeps all its inmates fully and constructively occupied. It is in the final stages of a redevelopment scheme which, as well as increasing its population from 180 to 300, will further expand the facilities and enable additional playing fields, as well as a planned hard surface area, to be brought into use. It is expected that some of those facilities will be brought into use by the end of the year.

    I shall say a brief word about the national staffing scene in response to what the hon. Gentleman said about it. He expressed anxiety about the effect on the establishment of the limited funds available for prison officer overtime. To put that in context, prison officer numbers, nationally, are ​ higher than they have ever been. They stood at 18,600 on 1 January this year. That represents and increase of about 18 per cent. since 1979. Over the same period the inmate population increased by about 12 per cent.

    During the next three years—from April this year to March 1989—we plan to recruit a further 3,500 staff. Although most of those will be required to man new accommodation, some are intended to relieve pressure at existing establishments where that is justified. Despite that injection of staff, however, there remains a difference between the number of staff employed and the authorised staffing levels.

    In the northern region, the shortfall between staff in post and authorised staffing levels is currently running at about 17·5 per cent. Acklington reflects that regional average. Castington, however, is staffed to within 9 per cent. of its authorised level. That favourable treatment of Castington reflects its proposed role in the handling and containment of a long-term and life sentence population.

    The nationally high level of overtime working in the prison service—on average about 16 hours a week—must be seen as a major problem. We have set a cash limit on the overtime budget this year, but I must emphasise that we have not cut expenditure in cash terms. The budget, at £81·6 million, is some £5 million more than last year’s spend, and a further cash increase is proposed for next year’s budget.

    The overtime budget has not significantly affected the regime at either Acklington or Castington. There has been somewhat less scope for local staff training than one might have wished, but nearly half of Castington’s discipline staff and three quarters of those at Acklington have so far undergone the four-day course in control and restraint training.

    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the introduction of lifers, which is of special interest to me as I carry responsibility in the Home Office for case work on life sentence prisoners, and he expressed anxiety about their introduction at Castington. There are three main centres for young offenders who are serving sentences of custody for life, detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure and detention for life. They are located at the youth custody centres at Aylesbury, Exeter and Swinfen hall, near Lichfield. It is recognised that there is a need for a young offender lifer centre in the north and we believe that Castington will be the right establishment to take on the role.

    I must make it clear, however, that there are, as yet, no firm plans to transfer young offender lifers into Castington. Such a development would be preceded by very careful preparation of staff for work with this special group of young offenders. We shall not proceed until we are satisfied that Castington can properly and safely be asked to assume this function. The hon. Member may take it that we shall keep in touch with him on that so that his representations can be given their proper weight. I appreciate his sensitivity to the concerns of those who work in the prison and of his constituents who live in the surrounding area.

    Acklington is a category C establishment, which means that it caters for prisoners who cannot be trusted in wholly open conditions but are not considered to pose a serious danger to the public. The level of security of prisons such as Acklington is commensurate with that judgment. In that ​ context, the prison’s security record has been pretty good. In 1983, four prisoners escaped but were recaptured almost immediately. In 1984 there were no escapes from within the prison, although one prisoner absconded from an outside working party. In 1985, five prisoners escaped. Two were recaptured within 48 hours and the others have since been returned to custody.

    It has been suggested that some arrangement for alerting the local community of an escape should be instituted. This matter has, of course, been carefully considered by the prison authorities in consultation with the police. The arrangements that are made have to find a balance between the need to alert the public to be on the look out with the need to avoid causing undue anxiety. The view that has been taken is that the local radio station provides the best medium of communication for this purpose. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s assent to that. If he has any suggestions, we will be happy to consider them.

    I can confirm that there are indeed plans to demolish a substantial number of the derelict houses on the perimeter after the failure of attempts to offer them to the local authority. It is sad that that did not work out, but there we are.

    The hon. Member mentioned mess staffing. It is true that the prison department has recently proposed that, unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary, officers’ messes should be staffed by civilian cooks. This is more economic, but that is not the only reason for making the change. It is in principle inappropriate to use a highly trained prison officer or prison auxiliary on this work. It is, indeed, highly desirable to release such officers for other duties more appropriate to their grade. It is much the same argument as that which has led to the replacement of police officers by ancillary office workers.

    We are pursuing a consistent policy in the law and order services. Prison officers are badly needed elsewhere. The figures that I gave earlier demonstrate that. We expect to avoid redundancies and are of course prepared to retain prison auxiliaries on mess duties when no other posts can be found for them.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to his concern that inmates might in future be employed in the mess under the supervision of a civilian rather than a prison officer. We shall consider carefully the views of local management and staff on this point, but in general I do not share the Prison Officers Association’s concern about this policy. Any inmates working in the mess will have been specially selected for that purpose. Civilians supervise inmates in messes and elsewhere at other establishments without difficulty. I stress that no decision has yet been taken about Acklington.

    Mr. Beith

    I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will take careful note of what I said about the physical location of the mess and about civilians being unaided for considerable periods of time while they are supervising inmates.

    Mr. Mellor

    I took that point on board. That is why I stressed that no decision has yet been taken. The hon. Gentleman’s point will certainly be looked at. We have a great interest in ensuring that everything goes smoothly at this establishment, that staff are not placed in jeopardy and that offenders do not abscond and make a nuisance of ​ themselves in the neighbourhood. We are anxious to build on the already good relationship in the neighbourhood of Acklington.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to education and reported that there is concern about the balance of the education programme. I am satisfied that the programme strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of those inmates who are capable of more advanced studies and those whose educational requirements are more basic. Literacy and remedial classes are available to prisoners who are prepared to make use of them. I know that the education officer at the prison attaches great importance to identifying and encouraging such prisoners. A number of inmates are attending classes of this kind, but we cannot and would not wish to make attendance at classes by adults compulsory. The range of the educational programmes at both Acklington and Castington, and the quality of their library services, are among the best features of the two establishments.

    Mr. Beith indicated assent.

    Mr. Mellor

    I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s assent. He also referred to the employment of prisoners. The current employment plan is to provide some 173 industrial workplaces at Acklington: 100 in the tailoring workshop, up to 60 for an engineering or woodwork industry and 13 in the laundry. The present position is that the laundry is fully manned. Some 45 inmates are employed in the tailoring workshop and the aim is to employ the full complement of 100 inmates as soon as the current programme of recruitment workshop preparation has been completed. Prison service industries and farms are currently carrying out an investment appraisal of the engineering and woodwork industry being considered for Acklington. The outcome is likely to be known shortly. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know about that as soon as we have the details.

    I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the current lack of employment opportunities at Acklington. It is also ​ the case that the Gaydon hangar is not yet fully in use, but the hon. Gentleman may be assured that the prison department is doing what it can to speed up the process of employing inmates and making the best use of the hangar. But it is quite clearly prudent to ensure that the investment of public money in prison industries at Acklington is soundly based. The investment appraisal is designed to ensure that this objective is met.

    As for medical facilities, perhaps I should explain that the purpose built hospital at Acklington was designed to serve, and does serve, the populations of the two establishments, which together now hold over 600 inmates. The medical and hospital staff also serve both establishments. I share the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment that it has not yet been possible to bring the in-patient facility into use. Initially there were problems with the internal security and control arrangements, and more recently staffing pressures on the discipline side have meant that local management has been unable to make suitable arrangements for a night patrol in the hospital area, which is physically separate from the sleeping accommodation in the main prison.

    However, I understand and am happy to report that these difficulties have now been resolved. It is hoped to appoint a full-time medical officer to Acklington in the near future and that it will then be possible to set an early date for the opening of the inpatient facility to Acklington inmates, although some upgrading of physical security may be required before its use can be extended to in-patients from Castington.

    Finally, it is right that I should place in perspective the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Acklington prison and Castington youth custody centre are both developing, expanding institutions. For their staff these plans afford both the prospect of challenging and worthwhile work and the means and resources with which to carry it out.

  • Alan Beith – 1986 Speech on Acklington and Castington Prisons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Beith, the then Liberal MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the House of Commons on 17 February 1986.

    The Minister has had a long evening. He has had a six-hour debate on animals to reply to, but I feel that it is necessary to detain him for half an hour on the subject of prisons and those who work in them. When the former Royal Air Force airfield at Acklington was taken over by the Home Office about 15 years ago to become a prison, the change was not universally welcomed in the surrounding area. At times, in the short history of the prison, there has been quite a lot of local concern either about escapes or the decision to introduce life prisoners into a category C prison which was at variance with the plans originally discussed with the local community.

    Despite the inevitable, anxieties, the prison has undoubtedly won acceptance from the vast majority of people in the area. It provides jobs in an area of very high unemployment and prison officers and civilian employees are now a large and valued part of the community. Many prison officers are now buying their own houses and they can be found in many of the towns and villages in my constituency. Many local people are involved in part-time or voluntary activity at the prison, and prisoners have contributed to local life by making toys and equipment for children, cooking meals for pensioners and through sporting fixtures. The feasibility of putting selected life sentence prisoners into a category C prison after they have served the majority of their sentence and been assessed as suitable has been proved. I supported that decision when it was made, and I believe that it has worked satisfactorily. There are inevitably some problems and tonight’s debate gives me an opportunity to raise them.

    I wish to set them in the context of institutions which have an established place in the local scene and do a difficult job with the respect and understanding of the community. Out of Acklington grew Castington, a young offenders’ institution which started as a wing of the adult prison but which is now a fully separate institution with its own perimeter security, its own governor and plans to extend to nearly twice its present numbers. Young offenders institutions do not at present have a security classification like that of adult prisons. That is a cause of concern to the Prison Officers’ Association, but it is clear that it requires and has, a higher level of security than Acklington.

    Castington’s inmates are long-term prisoners. To be sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment at 17 or 18 is the consequence of a very serious offence or offences. Castington now faces the same issue that confronted Acklington. The Home Office wants to introduce life prisoners. In Castington’s case, these cannot be prisoners reaching the end of their sentences, for they will serve out the later years of their sentences in adult prisons, some of them, ironically, more secure than Castington. At present, Castington is not equipped to cope with such a change in its role and one of my objects is to seek the Minister’s assurance that no such change will take place until the security and staffing is fully adequate to the needs which would be created. There are lessons to be learned from the experiences of last summer at Castington when there were serious disturbances. Those events, ​ which included a roof top protest, placed considerable demands on prison officers, many of whom acted with notable courage and skill to bring the problems under control.

    It was also demonstrated that it was possible for an inmate to barricade his cell door and break through the cell walls before officers could get into the cell to stop him. The cells were simply not strong enough for some of the prisoners they were accommodating, let alone for some of the lifers who might be placed in them later.

    It is clearly the objective of the governor and staff at Castington so to organise the regime that such disturbances are extremely unlikely to occur, and there are good signs that they are succeeding. The Journal in Newcastle has carried encouraging reports not only of the progress made but of pioneering work in which football hooligans helped to explore the causes of football violence.

    However, the possibility of disruption cannot be ruled out, and precautions must be taken. Perimeter security has already been improved and steps are now being taken to prevent cells from being barricaded. A few cells have been strengthened. Much further work is necessary before the Home Office can be satisfied that the institution’s admission policy can be changed, and I hope that the Minister will be clear on that point tonight.

    There is anxiety that other pressures on the Department’s budget such as the conversion of RAF Lindholme to prison use are pre-empting the necessary resources, but walls do not a prison make, and it is on the regime and the staff that the effectiveness of the institution depends. Until relatively recently, the running of prisons throughout the country was largely dependent on large amounts of overtime working. Both the administration of prisons and the prison officers’ standard of living became dependent on overtime. The introduction of a system of overtime budgets is intended to change that pattern, but there is anxiety at both Acklington and Castington that it may lead to a restricted regime in future. The fear is greatest at Castington because the disturbances last summer gave rise to large amounts of overtime. If that overtime is counted against this year’s budget, it will have a direct and drastic effect on the availability of staff to do constructive work with those in their custody. I hope that the Minister can ensure that that does not happen.
    In the light of the disturbances, there is also an anxiety among Castington staff that control and restraint training should be taken by all officers, and appropriate “refresher” training at regular intervals.

    Another security anxiety arises from the proposal that, as part of the policy of “civilianising” officers mess staff, there should no longer be a prison officer in charge of the shared mess which serves both Acklington and Castington. The local situation would make such a change very unwise. The mess is isolated and at a distance from both prisons: it would not be adequate for a civilian employee to have charge of the prisoners who work in the mess, particularly between mealtimes when no prison officer may be in the building. I plead with the Minister to make certain that “civilianisation” is not rigidly applied in a situation where it could pose a threat to security. There is a further anxiety about the intention of the prison Department to dispense with day duty yard patrols. ​ Castington and Acklington cover a wide area, and there is a strong case for the added security provided by those patrols.

    Adult prisoners and young trainees need to be occupied as constructively as possible: that is the best way of promoting self-discipline both inside the prison and when a prisoner is discharged. It is, therefore, a matter for concern that there is such a large amount of unused or underused workshop accommodation at both Acklington and Castington. Only a fraction of the available workshop space is serving the purpose for which it was intended.

    There has been a serious decline in prison industries throughout the country: Acklington and Castington, unlike the dispersal prisons, are designed to have a much larger work and training component, and I hope that the Minister can tell us how it will be increased in future. Workshop facilities that cost millions of pounds should not be standing empty.

    Another wasted facility is the purpose-built hospital at Acklington, which is still not in use. The Department has not yet succeeded in recruiting a full-time medical officer for the two prisons, and has not staffed the hospital. That means that prisoners must be taken away to Ashington hospital, and officers have to be deployed to accompany them. It is questionable whether the hospital should have been put into Acklington at all. On security grounds, there would have been a much better case for putting it within the Castington perimeter. But how long is it to remain in its present unused state?

    Both institutions have excellent education facilities, which provide very good opportunities for those motivated to use them. It is sometimes suggested, however, that there needs to be more of a drive to bring basic literacy and numeracy to those who are less well motivated but whose criminality may owe something to their inability to cope with the basic requirements of modern society.

    Physical education and sport are a very important part of the programme of both institutions and are especially valuable as an outlet for the energies of the young inmates as Castington. The sports facilities are envied by some of the local rural communities, which do not enjoy the extensive sports ad leisure centres so common in urban areas. I welcome the way in which disabled members of the local community have been given the opportunity to use prison sports facilities, and I hope that such ideas will be developed. I recognise that, because of the value of physical education as part of the regime, it will be a good thing if Castington could be given the chance to develop the additional hard and grass sports area for which it has suitable land within its perimeter.

    There are still a large number of unoccupied houses adjoining the perimeter of the two prisons—a subject of many parliamentary questions from me in earlier years. I understand that many of the remaining properties will be cleared to make way for future development at Castington. I should welcome some clarification on the point, since keeping homes empty is undesirable and represents a further potential security problem.

    It is sometimes suggested in the local community that when escapes occur, as they have in the past at Acklington, there should be a local alert, perhaps by a siren, so that suspicious persons seen in the locality can be reported. I share the view that a general alarm would be undesirable, because it would give the impression of danger when the individual who has escaped may pose no danger to the local community. However, there are ways ​ of alerting those whose property might be used as cover, and I hope that that sort of thing will be done. Local radio has proved helpful in that respect, spreading the information that a prisoner has escaped without giving a general sense of alarm when there may be no good reason to do so.

    Recent years have seen major and unsettling changes in the prison service. The prison population nationally has continued to increase alarmingly, while the Home Office has sought with increasing difficulty to contain the prison service budget. The violence which has brought people into prison, many of them very young, must be contained inside the prison and makes the prison officer’s job difficult and sometimes dangerous. Prison officers have had to take the consequences of political decisions. Many of them will not easily forget the effect of the previous Home Secretary’s arbitrary decision on life sentences on lifers, who suddenly discovered that their release dates had been put back indefinitely.

    The prison service has come through a period of doubt and questioning—started by the psychiatrists and criminologists—about whether there is any scope for what used to be called “reforming” the prisoners, or whether staff were simply to be engaged in containment. There is now a rather more realistic, but nevertheless positive climate in the prison service, but it has come at a time of increased budgetary restraint. There is clearly a need for greater flexibility in the ability of the local prison governor to manage the resources for which he is responsible, but officers are understandably worried that changes in established staffing practices will be used by the Home Office as an excuse for cutting resources, reducing security and locking prisoners in their cells for long periods.

    I hope that by his reply tonight the Minister can demonstrate that this will not be so and that the Home Office has a firm commitment to maintaining and increasing the effectiveness of institutions which house long-term prisoners such as Acklington and Castington.

  • Michael Howard – 1986 Speech on the Paper Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Howard, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the House of Commons on 14 February 1986.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on raising the subject of the British paper industry. He represents a constituency in an area that has a concentration of paper and board mills. I know that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) are closely interested in the fortunes of the industry and wish to see it succeed and prosper. I share that objective.

    This is a timely debate because it will help to register publicly that the United Kingdom has a substantial, forward-looking industry well able to meet the needs of customers here and abroad. The industry suffered badly in the recession with many closures of mills and machines, but it has been fighting back and is keen that more customers should fully recognise its capabilities —as many do already.

    There are some notable investment projects both by traditional United Kingdom producers and by overseas investors. In my county of Kent, Bowater at Kemsley has recently spent £12·5 million on rebuilding a paper machine and on the latest converting and packing equipment. The company now has an impressive, large, modern facility with which to challenge other European suppliers. In addition, Reed at Aylesford has rebuilt its newsprint machine to improve its efficiency and product quality. Near Aberdeen, Thomas Tait and Sons is investing £20 million to build the largest fine paper machine in the United Kingdom, again equipping the company to compete successfully in Europe. Multi-million pound investment programmes have been carried out by other United Kingdom companies too, including Wiggins Teape, GP-Inveresk and Tullis Russell.

    In many mills new computerised process control equipment has helped product quality and efficiency. The industry claims a 39 per cent. increase in output per man since 1979 among the mills making printing and writing paper — which account for over a quarter of the industry’s production. The sector of the industry which has seen the most dramatic recovery is newsprint. By 1983 production had fallen to some 80,000 tonnes, or only some ​ 5 per cent. of United Kingdom demand, but the United Kingdom has secured two major inward investment projects.

    Consolidated Bathurst of Canada has invested some £50 million to modernise and reopen a mill at Ellesmere Port. United Paper Mills of Finland has invested £130 million to build a new integrated pulp and paper mill at Shotton in North Wales. This new mill was opened by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in December, having been completed ahead of schedule. These are excellent examples of the kind of inward investment that the Government are keen to encourage. The industry can now satisfy about a third of United Kingdom demand for newsprint, and I hope that this capacity will be fully utilised.

    Where investment projects have satisfied the relevant criteria, Government assistance has been offered to enable them to go ahead. For example, the Bowater Kemsley project received selective assistance of £1·5 million under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act. Regional selective assistance totalling £6·5 million was offered for the two large newsprint projects at Bridgwater and Shotton. There have been smaller assisted projects too.
    A number of companies have undertaken coal firing projects with Government assistance. In some other cases, investment projects have helped to demonstrate innovations in energy efficiency and it has been possible to offer assistance under the energy demonstration scheme. In 1984 the industry is reported to have invested over £6·5 million in energy-related capital projects with an average expected payback of 1-6 years.

    The industry is increasingly committed to its energy management monitoring and targeting programme developed in close co-operation with the Department of Energy which has provided financial support. I congratulate the industry on its efforts. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and commitment of the British Paper and Board Industry Federation, whose staff has done so much to develop the programme and encourage member companies to apply it. In 1984, the industry used 5 per cent. less energy than in 1983 to produce 12 per cent. more paper and board.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North has made a number of interesting points in his speech, to which I now turn. He referred to interest rates and the importance of keeping them as low as possible. I am sure that he recognises that interest rates will continue to be held at the lowest rate that is consistent with the need to maintain monetary conditions and keep steady downward pressure on inflation. Inflation would cause far more damage to industry if it were to take hold again. The recent moves on interest rates reflect our determination to ensure that it does not.

    I appreciate the significance to the industry of exchange rates, but they are ultimately determined by the underlying competitive strength of our economy and the economies of our trading partners. Greater stability in the exchange markets is clearly desirable, but no country can achieve that single handed.

    We aim, therefore, to achieve it through co-operation with our major trading partners. An example of that was the agreement of the Group of Five countries last September that orderly depreciation of the dollar was desirable.

    Since then, the dollar has moved towards a more sustainable level and the pound has declined against the mark, the franc and the yen. ​ My hon. Friend mentioned membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. The Government are ready to join the exchange rate mechanism when we judge that the conditions are right, but the decision must be carefully weighed. Sterling is widely held and traded internationally, and it is subject to different and often opposite strains from currencies that are already in the exchange rate mechanism. Furthermore, it is by no means certain that opinion even in the paper industry is unanimous on this matter.

    The changes in capital allowances are in line with the Government’s policy of simplifying the tax system and eliminating distortions. The burden of tax administration for companies and Government will be reduced, and companies are encouraged to concentrate on identifying and investing in profitable projects. The changes will reduce overall corporate taxation in the longer term. The effect on individual companies will depend on past investment and profitability and on the availability of unused allowances.

    Advance notice of the changes has given a secure planning environment. I am aware that the paper federation has already made known the industry’s views on capital allowances in its Budget representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure he will consider them carefully.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North also mentioned alleged dumping of Kraft liner. This is an important matter. I fully appreciate the industry’s concern. Officials from my Department have asked representatives of the industry to provide additional information, including evidence of breaches in the minimum import price. The Department would be glad to review the matter with the industry, and I believe that the industry’s European association is planning to consult again the EC Commission, which has the main responsibility in these matters.

    My hon. Friend mentioned oil and the importance of taking advantage of the fall in price. He also spoke about electricity. Electricity prices for most UK consumers are comparable with those on the Continent. The exception is France, where consumers benefit from extensive low-cost nuclear generation. The level of prices is the responsibility of the electricity industry. The Government set the financial framework for the industry to ensure that it earns a proper return. The Government acknowledge, however, that the largest users face higher prices, and we appreciate the difficulties that that causes. Following extensive discussions in the National Economic Development Organisation and with the industry, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board have been working on proposals which could result in lower prices ​ for the most intensive users, as in the paper industry. The proposals have still to be finalised, but I hope that decisions will not be long delayed.

    As for the starch regime, I am pleased to say that considerable progress has been made on the proposals of the European Commission, which are designed to help industrial users of starch in the Community. The Council of Agriculture Ministers will be asked to take a decision on modified proposals at its meeting on 24 February. To a large extent, the proposals meet the desires of the paper and board industry.

    I listened to what my hon. Friend said about detailed proposals, which he is to send to the Department, for assistance with various new technologies. My Department is always ready to listen to proposals on that subject. Indeed, support is already given for innovative projects which meet the Department’s criteria. The industry has benefited from the relevant scheme. The scheme has been used to assist two projects which are designed to demonstrate to the industry as a whole the benefits of applying new technology. Both are taking place at Thames Board at Purfleet. I am sure that the details are known to those who take a close interest in the industry’s future.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South raised, in particular, the East Lancashire Paper Mills in his constituency, and I am delighted that he was given the opportunity of referring to them. That company has also been preparing for the future. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), when Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, met company representatives, and encouraged them to keep in touch with the Department. Following the review of regional policy, the mills are now in an assisted area. My officials in the north-west regional office are happy to discuss with the company the question of assistance for any potential future projects.

    The industry is too often remembered for its difficulties. It is now aware of the need to spread the message of its successes. An impressive initiative in that direction is the recent publication of a newspaper about companies which make printing and writing paper. The newspaper draws attention to their strengths, and highlights recent developments, especially the large-scale investment for the future which has taken place. I welcome that positive approach, and I know that the industry is considering other possible initiatives.
    I hope that between us my hon. Friend and I have said enough to show that paper and board is an industry looking to the future with more confidence and much to offer its customers at home and abroad. I wish it every success.

  • Alistair Burt – 1986 Speech on the Paper Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt, the then Conservative MP for Bury North, in the House of Commons on 14 February 1986.

    I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to raise the question of the current state of the British paper industry. The connection between that industry and my constituency is well known. Bury has a long history in the paper trade, not only in manufacture but with the allied trades that manufacture and design the paper-making machinery, the felt-making trade that assists the rollers in the factories and the general engineering trades that have helped the paper industry for many generations.

    I now have only three mills in my constituency but there are more on my doorstep and I am pleased to note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South, (Mr. Sumberg) who I know will seek to catch your eye later Mr. Deputy Speaker. The mills in my constituency are spread throughout the area and demonstrate the wide spectrum of paper-making in this country. Olives paper mill in Tottington deals with printing and writing paper, James R. Cramptons and Sons in Bury deals with fibre papers, making, among other things, sausage skins and tea bags. Trinity Paper Mills is based in Ramsbottom and deals with corrugated paper and board, sack paper and other similar papers.

    It is an appropriate opportunity for me to pay tribute to those who work in the paper and allied trades in Bury who have been through difficult times, but management and work force alike have worked very hard to look forward to a better future. The current climate in the paper industry is rather different from that of 1982, the last time the industry was raised in an Adjournment debate by the then Member for Bury and Radcliffe, Mr. Frank White, who was well known for his good work on behalf of the industry. At that time the industry was in the depths of a crisis which, at its worst, over the period between 1974 and 1984, cost the country 50 mills out of 160 and nearly 30,000 employees out of a total of 70,000. In 1982 the finger was being firmly pointed at the Government and at high energy costs and their disastrous effect on competitiveness throughout the industry. The industry did not disguise the fact that there were other problems but there was no doubt that the energy crisis, in the first period between 1979 and 1982, made a great and lasting impression on the paper industry.

    In 1986 things are rather different. It is not my intention to moan on behalf of the paper industry. I seek to do two things. First, I wish to remind the House and the people at large of the achievements of the industry over the past few years. Secondly, I wish to point the way ahead, while ​ asking the Government to take note of those factors which may impair the growth of the industry and over which they may exercise some control.

    The achievements of the paper industry over the past two years have been substantial. About £600 million has been invested over the past five years, not only in new machines but for upgrading the existing plant. The price of paper in real terms has fallen with consequent benefits to the consumers. Productivity has increased by nearly 40 per cent.; energy efficiency has improved by 30 per cent.; a new training scheme for process employees has been introduced and management and unions alike are to be congratulated on the new working practices that have been introduced.

    Exports as a proportion of the United Kingdom production have increased from 10 per cent. in 1979 to 15·5 per cent. in 1985 — a 50 per cent. increase. Demand and home production are now growing well in nearly all sectors. The Government have also played their part in that recovery. If we chided the Government for their part in the energy price increases in the early part of the decade it is only fair that we offer some words of comfort and thank the Government for some of their achievements since then. There have been certain changes in the common agricultural policy of the European Community to enable industry to obtain starch at world prices. There has been a removal of the national insurance surcharge and, at last, there has been a much needed stability in energy prices, albeit at a higher level than the industry would have hoped. There has been the energy efficiency demonstration projects, supported and financed by the Government, which have had a great benefit on the industry.

    I shall turn from the real and substantial achievements of the industry over the past few years and deal with some of the concerns and problems of the industry which I would like the Government to bear in mind. The first is a general issue affecting manufacturing industry —interest rates. Concern about the effect of high interest rates on investment is shared throughout manufacturing industry. The balance is always difficult to achieve but there is no doubt that high interest rates hamper growth and the industry and the Government have a vested interest in seeing interest rates fall as quickly as possible. I urge the Minister to take that matter seriously and I urge his colleagues to look at interest rates as quickly as possible.

    Secondly, I wish to deal with the exchange rates. The volatility of exchange rates in recent years has cost any importer or exporter dear. It is not the levels of the currency but the speed at which it fluctuates that has caused a great deal of harm. I can graphically illustrate that with a comment in a letter I have received from one of the mills within my constituency. I quote:

    “Just a year ago, the Franc stood at 11·16—a rate at which business could just about be conducted economically. By July, it had risen to 12·28 and this adverse change of 10 per cent. within five months gave no alternative but to withdraw from the French market almost entirely. With hindsight that was a mistake, because on Tuesday last, the rate had declined to 10·28. But who was to know that within seven months that adverse 10 per cent. would turn around into an 8 per cent. advantage? With this new comfort why not then simply re-enter the French market and enjoy it? Because the customer expects continuity and a guarantee that a supplier will remain in a market long-term. How can my constituent give such assurances in such a chaotic situation? Since the Dutchman can; and the German can; my constituent, the industry and the nation are severely disadvantaged.”

    Exchange rates worry James R. Cromptons and Sons which exports nearly 50 per cent. of its production. I appreciate the difficulties that the Government face when they think about joining the European monetary system, but there is no doubt that the Government should think seriously about the benefits of stable exchange rates. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider that matter seriously.

    The changes made to capital allowances in recent Budgets are a major worry to industry. The three mills in my constituency report a problem. They believe that the phasing out of those allowances can reduce our ability to match the performance of our overseas competitors. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South may also mention that point.

    There are two items of special interest to the paper industry. The first relates to the problem of Kraft liner. The EEC has fixed a minimum price for imported Kraft liner to stop dumping. However, that regulation is being widely breached, affecting not just the case material industry in this country and Europe, but, crucially, the EEC’s anti-dumping enforcement credibility. The Department of Trade and Industry’s anti-dumping unit has given great assistance to the industry, but the Government must continue to press Europe on that issue. If the European Commission is not perceived to be credible in dealing with dumping, the ramifications, not just for the paper industry but other manufacturing industry in this country, will be widespread and profound.

    The second problem relating to paper is that of starch. The EEC has a price for starch well above the market rate. That is connected with the common agricultural policy, because starch is a natural product: without starch some paper processes cannot go ahead. My constituents—and in particular the Olives paper mill — face world competition and are at a disadvantage because of the artificially high price of starch. The industry appreciates the efforts that the Government have made to press their European colleagues on that matter but it hopes that my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will do even more.

    The paper industry’s energy problem has lasted for some time. Costs have now stabilised somewhat. The problem is not as serious as it was, although much damage has been done. It is hoped that such damage will not recur. Great credit should go to the paper industry, which has buckled down to the problem and done all it could to increase efficiency. Credit must also go the Department of Energy, which has had a high profile in encouraging efficiency, promoting schemes and providing material assistance.

    I must utter a word of caution. With oil prices coming down, with their consequent knock-on effects for manufacturing industry, it would be folly to penalise industry by seeking an increase in taxation to cover lost revenue. The Government should let manufacturing industry reap the rewards of lower costs and increased efficiency. The Department of Trade and Industry should strongly urge the Treasury not to adopt such a policy. It should not seek to penalise manufacturing industry and use lower oil prices to slap on an extra tax. Hard lessons have been learnt by the paper and other industries. It will be a shame if the industry is not allowed to compete properly now. Further assistance with energy costs, by way of help for the electricity high loaders, would be welcome.

    My last subject is foreign aid subsidy. The industry has learnt from the European Commission that instances of apparent infringement of articles 92 and 93 in the paper section continue to increase, as member states either grant aid without notification or apply for dispensation on rather flimsy grounds. Either the Government should press the Commission to enforce the regulations more thoroughly or they should be more liberal. The industry is squeezed all ways. It is accused of trying to play cricket when everybody else is playing a different game. For long enough the Department of Trade and Industry has had one arm behind its back in its dealings with those on the continent who try to assist their industries in an artificial and unfair way. It is time for the Department to be more robust.

    As for manufacturing industry in general, the demonstration projects of the Department of Energy have enjoyed great success throughout industry. Is it too much to hope that the DTI will seize on that success and produce a new initiative for manufacturing industry?

    I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will allow me to put to him in writing some ideas on a scheme to promote improvements in manufacturing efficiency and quality. A charge that sits uneasily on the shoulders of this Government, particularly in the northwest of England, is that they do not care about manufacturing industry. It is vital that we should lay this charge to rest. This party and this Government must serve all of our people, not just some. Manufacturing industry must once again feel confidence in us. That confidence is lacking.

    The paper and board industry is an object lesson in recovery and initiative. It has done everything that the Government have asked it to do. It should be used by the Government as a model for others. It should not have to weather Government-inspired storms. If the Minister considers my remarks carefully, he will find that the paper and board industry in my constituency and throughout the country has not let him down. It is time that people were able to feel that the Government have changed their attitude towards manufacturing industry. They could do worse than start with the paper and board industry, which has already done so much for the country and which promises, with the benefit of competition and of a fairer wind all round, to do so much more.

  • Ivan Lawrence – 1986 Speech on the Roskill Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ivan Lawrence, the then Conservative MP for Burton, in the House of Commons on 13 February 1986.

    The Roskill report is splendid, but I have strong reservations about it. Mainly this is because Roskill allocates too much of the blame for fraud to the current procedure for conducting fraud trials and so suggests remedies which are quite unnecessarily radical.

    Since more people are convicted in fraud trials than for most other offences, it ought not to be the trial procedure that causes concern. What worries people is that City swindlers go abroad and cannot be extradited back to England, that dishonest City men are given immunity from prosecution if they give evidence before internal, self-regulating City institutions’ own tribunals and that some fraudsters never come to trial because the resources of police manpower, accountancy, expertise and investigative procedures are inadequate to bring them to justice.

    Tackling the extradition law and strengthening powers of investigation, establishing a fraud investigation group, and making available more police, legal and accountancy resources for the pursuit of the fraudulent is where the emphasis should lie.

    Roskill’s proposals for the improvement of investigation, preparation, presentation at court, training, and staffing resources are desirable and most welcome.

    We must pause for deep thought over Roskill’s proposals to take fraud out of the criminal justice system as we know it—a system which is designed to secure the conviction of the guilty by fair means and the acquittal of the innocent. If we are panicked into doing anything which undermines our trust in the legal system as being just, we threaten one of the most important pillars of our society.

    I am not sure how useful some of the Roskill recommendations will be. I do not feel strongly about paper committals, but the proposals go in the opposite direction to that which many of us had said should happen ​ —we should use committal proceedings far more to ensure that inadequate cases are thrown out before time and money are wasted further up the ladder.

    Pre-trial reviews—the so-called tea parties—are a notorious waste of time and will only work if the legal aid fund becomes so generous that the trial barrister can be guaranteed to attend and the list office can ensure that the trial judge is present. Both are somewhat optimistic expectations.

    In a fraud trial, someone is deceived by a false representation into doing something that is against his or her interests. That is often the central element of all sorts of other criminal offences—rape, treason, tax evasion, and bilking a fare or a restaurant bill. Fraud cases are not always the most complex. There are treason, drug and even murder cases where the competence of a jury of ordinary people can be taxed.

    How long will it be before what Roskill proposes for fraud will be extended to other complex cases of deception? If the law does not so develop, why not?
    Where will be the logic of requiring the disclosure of the defence in one case rather than another? Justice in a commentary upon Roskill puts it this way:

    “Why should a defendant accused of deceiving an insurance company into wrongly parting with money be obliged to disclose his defence but not the defendant who has deceived a restaurateur into parting with a meal for which he does not intend to pay or a women into consenting to sexual relations for favours which he does not intend to provide?”

    The law must apply evenly and it will not so apply if some of the Roskill proposals are implemented. It will become distorted.

    I come to juries. The peremptory challenge may be irritating, although only in cases where there are a large number of defendants can it be used to tailor a jury. To abolish it, will cause all sorts of problems. We are already moving towards tailored juries with jury vetting and a kind of voire dire. If the safety valve of the peremptory challenge goes, there will be more and more challenges for cause in terrorist or gangland trials and the limitations of the challenge for cause will be exposed. There will be pressure for it to be extended. we shall be sliding down the slippery slope to the crazy United States system of jury selection before we know it. How then will the jury system have been improved?

    There is another reason. Trials only progress with the co-operation of the accused. They believe the system to be fair because they can challenge a juryman without reason. Deprive a defendant of that right and he will feel frustrated and railroaded by a court which, so he may think, has rigged the jury against him. If the police are allowed to vet the jury, that will be an active fear. For the sake of five minutes delay in court time, some trials will become much more difficult to conduct.

    We must think longer and more clearly about the abolition of trial by jury in complex fraud cases than about anything else. I share most of the views that have been expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House against abolition and I shall not repeat them.

    However, I do recognise the attractiveness of the proposal for special tribunals for they will speed up proceedings. A jury may very well understand a fraud trial, but the point is that it will take many days to explain the balance sheet and all the procedures so that they do understand it. A special tribunal would be able to work overnight, understand the case and dispatch the trial with greater speed. Furthermore, innocent people might well ​ welcome specialist tribunals rather than a jury in a complex case. The standards of probity involved in City institutions might not be readily understood by the ordinary man in the street. Such defendants might prefer to have a special tribunal.

    I would rather that juries stay as they are. If we do give way to pressure to have such tribunals may I suggest that the Government should set up a pilot scheme for such tribunals which should operate for two years. A defendant should have the option of such a tribunal. If it were shown to produce satisfactory results for innocent defendants, the objections to the abolition of the jury from those who are worried that it would produce a procedure weighted against the accused would be dispelled.

    Finally, there is no point in catching fraudsters arid convicting them if there is no deterrent in the sentence they receive. Justice states:

    “Sentences are far too lenient and the proceeds of crime are rarely recovered. Fraud, like other varieties of criminal conduct, will only diminish once those who perpetrate it realise that no profit is to be gained from it.”

    The Roskill report was not empowered to consider the consequences of conviction. Should we not at the very least be strengthening the powers of the court so that they may confiscate the defendant’s property which could be reasonably attributable to the proceeds of fraud? That is what the Hodgson committee recommended and that is what the Government are currently implementing in its Drug Trafficking Offences Bill. We should do the same in fraud cases.

  • Derek Spencer – 1986 Speech on the Roskill Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Derek Spencer, the then Conservative MP for Leicester South, in the House of Commons on 13 February 1986.

    I wish to make five points. The first concerns committal proceedings. The Psalmist said:

    “One day in my courts is better than a thousand.”

    However, when I sat through 80 days of committal proceedings at the Lambeth magistrates court, I felt that one day in court was like a thousand.

    The way in which contemporary committal proceedings are conducted is, for the most part, entirely futile. They are expensive and I support the Roskill committee and the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in saying goodbye to all that.

    My second point concerns the desirability of investigation and co-ordination. Without doubt it is desirable. In the Richmond Rendezvous case part of the inquiry was conducted by officers of the Customs and Excise who dealt with the value added tax aspects of the case. The remainder of the case was dealt with by officers from the Inland Revenue who dealt with PAYE and schedule D. There were two investigating officers, two sets of solicitors and two sets of instructions. Each party ​ arranged themselves on opposite sides of my table and glowered at each other with professional jealousy. It is time to end all that.

    My third point relates to the abolition of jury trial. In a sentence I would say to the Government, “Forget about abolishing jury trial and forget it straight away.”

    My fourth point concerns the conduct of the trial. This is where the most speedy action can be taken. There is much that the judges can do by displaying an aggressive attitude during pre-trial reviews. Severance in appropriate cases works wonders. I am convinced that we must compel disclosure by the defence of their defence. We have abolished trial by combat, but perpetuate trial by ambush. There is nothing to justify the prolongation of the right to silence into the trial. That is consistent neither with common sense nor morality.

    My fifth point relates to extradition. Many of the problems of fraud concern extradition. Mr. Pepperel, in the London and County bank case, was extradited from West Germany, and Mr. Caplan so used the judicial process in America that the energetic efforts of the Director of Public Prosecutions were not able to bring him back to this country. That is regrettable, but unfortunately it happened.

    Although the report raises many points of law, the most important point is a political point that requires action, and we ignore that at our peril.

  • Richard Hickmet – 1986 Speech on the Roskill Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Hickmet, the then Conservative MP for Glanford and Scunthorpe, in the House of Commons on 13 February 1986.

    If the proposals in the report are adopted, they will represent ​ a fundamental overhaul of court room procedure designed to improve investigation, preparation and presentation of fraud cases. Issues will be more readily identified through the pre-trial review procedure. Presentation of cases will be clearer and more easy to understand and rules of evidence will be modernised and made more effective. Trials will be shorter and will come to the Crown court more quickly.

    However, I have grave misgivings about the recommendations about the jury system. Jurors in all criminal cases should be able to read, write and to be numerate, let alone speak English. That proposition is so self-evident that no justification is needed. However, it is a remarkable thing that in fraud cases it is not unusual when the jury is empanelled to discover that some jurors cannot read.

    Apart from the welcome recommendations on the literacy and numeracy of jurors, the report contains a detailed attack on the jury system. It attacks not only the challenging of jurors by counsel, but the hearing of complex fraud trials by juries and other general matters. Perhaps the system of challenging juries has been abused. It is not unusual for counsel to give the impression that they are challenging jurors simply to obtain a jury that is weighted more towards the acquittal of the defendant than a just verdict.

    The report makes a comprehensive attack on the jury system and then seeks to say that, for the reasons set out in the report and because complex fraud trials are difficult for jurors to follow, trials which fall within certain guidelines should no longer be tried by judge and jury, only by judge and two lay assessors in the form of a fraud trials tribunal. We should welcome the fact that Mr. Walter Merricks was a member of the commission and produced his minority report.

    Lord Justice Roskill said that trial by a jury selected at random is a major contributing factor in preventing fraud cases from being brought to trial. He said that the difficulty of presenting a complex case often results in a decision to opt for a less serious charge. There is no evidence for those two propositions. There is no evidence to show that a jury cannot understand a complex financial fraud case if it does not know the background, let alone the dishonest elements.

    The minority report shows that, in 1983, of the 179 cases referred to the fraud division of the Director of Public Prosecutions for a decision on prosecution, only one case was not prosecuted on the grounds of complexity. That occurred on the advice of independent counsel and was an intellectual property case. Of the yearly average of 10 long fraud cases tried at the Old Bailey between 1979 and 1983, almost none was a complex fraud case that would be covered by the guidelines. There were carbon paper frauds, Spanish villa frauds and estate agent frauds, none of which could be defined as complex fraud cases.

    The thrust of the Commission’s recommendations is to reform procedure, presentation and rules of evidence so that that type of case can be understood by a jury. It is illogical to make those recommendations, and then to say, “But the jury system in those cases should be removed in any event.”

    We are told that defendants are no longer tried by juries selected at random because of the exclusions and that, accordingly, those who fill the jury box are not a true cross-section of the public. It is my impression that the ​ vast majority of people are not doctors, Members of Parliament, policemen or clergymen. The vast number of people who enter jury boxes represent society as a whole.

    The report also argues that, because the vast majority of legal cases in England and Wales are heard by skilled people, whether in the magistrates courts, county courts, Queen’s Bench courts or even in front of the 60 specialist tribunals, including those on immigration and social benefits, it is sentimental or illogical to retain jury trials in the Crown court. That is an extraordinary proposition. How many of those tribunals have the power to send a man to prison for life or, indeed, for more than one year? Not one. How many of those tribunals, with the exception of magistrates courts, have the power to find a man guilty of a criminal offence? Not one. How many defendants at the magistrates courts, when given the choice, opt for trial before the magistrates court rather than trial by jury? That represents many hundreds of thousands of cases each year.

    The report makes serious and damaging attacks on juries. It is essential, as Mr. Merricks said in his minority report, that the general public, as represented by the jury system and the press, should be able to understand complex fraud cases. The challenge to the criminal justice system must be to make such cases understandable to the general public and the press. No man should be sent to prison for a period of up to life imprisonment without being tried by a jury. As Mr. Merricks said powerfully, why should a man have the right to trial by jury because he commits an armed robbery with a sawn-off shotgun and steals £1 million, whereas if he used a computer to carry out a complex fraud, that right could be removed? I welcome the report’s recommendations about the investigation and presentation of cases but I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject the suggestion that jury trials in those case should be removed.

  • Patrick Ground – 1986 Speech on the Roskill Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick Ground, the then Conservative MP for Feltham and Heston, in the House of Commons on 13 February 1986.

    I agree with those hon. Members who have said that most of the Roskill recommendations in the first six chapters of the report should be implemented. I especially mention the proposal for a fraud commission, case controllers and the importance of legal advice at an early stage of the investigation.

    There is much scope for sensible relaxations of the rules of evidence and for greater measures of disclosure. I agree with the comments on that matter of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. ​ Carlisle). The position mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), could be coped with within the proposals. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to better facilities for judges. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of what was said by Lord Edmund-Davies in the debate in the other place about facilities for juries, which is especially important when considering jury trials.

    Lord Devlin said that the right to trial by jury has come to be regarded as a constitutional right for trials on serious criminal charges. Recently, several leading judges have suggested that jury trials should be restricted in cases of less serious crime. Lord Roskill suggests a substantial restriction at the serious end of the criminal scale. I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the majority of people in Britain believe that juries bring a valuable element of good sense and human experience to the legal system. That is generally appreciated throughout the country.

    If a major change is to be made to the jury system, such a change should not be made as a result of a side wind in this report, but as a result of a thorough investigation ranging across the board of jury trials. It would be wrong of the Government to seek to restrict jury -trials on the basis of a report on fraud.

    There are more serious and detailed reasons in the report that should lead the Government not to accept the recommendations in relation to juries. The only research in the report is mentioned in paragraph 8.11, which shows that

    “in almost six cases out of seven there was no serious complaint about the jury’s verdict from most of the participants contacted. None of the questionable acquittals in their sample of cases involved complex fraud and very few were the result of lengthy or involved trials.”

    Regarding the operation of the jury system in fraud cases, paragraph 8.12 of the report states:

    “We think that, in general, the public believes that juries provide a satisfactory method of trial and this view is held by many of our witnesses.”

    Another factor to be considered is the number of trials that fall in the category defined in the Roskill report. It is clear from paragraph 8.3 that there are relatively few cases involved. It states:

    “In the five years from 1979 to 1983 there was a yearly average of 26 fraud trials each lasting for longer than 20 working days … The longest single fraud trial lasted 137 working days.”

    The number of trials and the length of cases are inadequate to justify a radical change in the jury system, especially when the perception of the performance of juries is that generally they work satisfactorily.

    We have sometimes received complaints about judges and lawyers, but the number of complaints by members of the public, who have served on juries, about their experience of the length and hardship of trials is small in relation to other complaints about the Legal system. That demonstrates the fact that far from being overwhelmed by the so-called hardships mentioned in the report, most members of the public who are required on jury service, even on long trials, treat them as a duty of citizenship and a contribution that they are willing to make to the administration of justice.

  • Ian Percival – 1986 Speech on the Roskill Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Percival, the then Conservative MP for Southport, in the House of Commons on 13 February 1986.

    I hope to respond immediately to that plea. The House owes an enormous debt to Lord Roskill and his colleagues for the time and expertise put into producing the report. We also owe a considerable debt to Mr. Walter Merricks. I say that not merely because he is my wife’s nephew, but for two other reasons. I once made a dissenting report and I know what ​ it means to do that. The second and the main reason is that I agree with so much of what he says. He will know that that has not always been the case.

    I want to concentrate on making one point arising from the report. The two principal features in the report are pretrial preparation and whether we should do away with juries in fraud cases. They are intimately bound up with one another. I think that there are constitutional and philosophical reasons for keeping jury trials in cases where the consequences may be serious for the accused. I also think that there are both emotional and logical reasons for keeping juries in such cases.

    However, there is an even better, and practical, reason why we should not try to implement that recommendation at the moment. That is the fundamental reason put forward by the Roskill committee for abolishing juries, namely the complexity of certain fraud trials. Looking at it practically, one of the major reasons why cases are so complicated when they get to trial is that they have not been properly prepared. I do not say that as a criticism of anybody involved. At every stage, those who have to prepare the trials are having to overcome practical obstacles that would defeat most people. It is a miracle that some of the cases come to trial in as orderly fashion as they do.

    I want to support with all the emphasis that I can the recommendation that we should look urgently at preparations for trial—all pre-trial stages—and here we have a large number of positive recommendations. I doubt whether everybody would agree with every one of them but I am sure that everybody would agree that that is what we have to look at first. I believe that the Criminal Bar Association also has some further proposals in that area.

    My plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is to concentrate on that part of the report and get on with it, with all the assistance possible. I am sure that both sides of the profession will give their help. A lot of advice might also be obtained from the accountants, many of whom are now specialising in doing the groundwork in preparing cases for a fraud trial. Let us see how far we can get in simplifying the trial itself before we contemplate doing away with what, after all, has been regarded in this country for a very long time, as one of the principal safeguards of the liberty of the subject. I do not say that that tradition can justify sticking with one system for ever in all cases, but it should make us slow in abolishing it and especially abolishing it in any trial where the consequences for the accused of being found guilty may be very serious.

    My plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends is get on with it. I am not just supporting the recommendations concerning pre-trial matters. My plea is, let us get on with them, with considering and implementing the improvements we can make in pre-trial preparation just as quickly as possible. The beauty of it is that hardly any of that needs legislation. All that it needs is the will to get on with it. Let us leave other considerations about juries until we have tackled this first and done something about it.