Tag: David Mellor

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 24 February 1986.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has spoken eloquently of his constituents’ anxieties in this matter. Let me say at once that I think it perfectly understandable that this matter should have given rise to genuine concern. I want to set out the facts of the case as I understand them, and hope that there will be some reassurance for my hon. Friend.

Prior to the tragic events of 17 May 1985, Dennis Foskett had lived peacefully with his wife for more than 20 years. Statements before the court describe him and his wife as a devoted couple. He had no convictions but did have a history of depression which started after a bout of influenza in 1970. The depression recurred periodically over the intervening years, and his most recent illness began in April 1985, following another attack of influenza. It was so severe that he was forced to give up work because he suffered from anxiety to such an extent that he spontaneously broke down in tears.

A few days before the tragedy he consulted his family doctor, Dr. Glickman. She prescribed some drugs, which he thought made him worse, and on Friday 17 May Mrs. Foskett asked Dr. Glickman to visit her husband at home because his condition had deteriorated. Dr. Glickman agreed to visit him on her way home after she finished surgery.

At 7.12 pm the same evening neighbours saw Mr. Foskett run out of his front door shouting for help. He had ​ a hammer in his hand which he put on a dustbin lid and he kept repeating that he had killed his wife. The police and an ambulance were called and several passers by went to his assistance. He returned to the house to fetch a glass of water and some tablets which he immediately took. Mrs. Foskett was found to be already dead and Dr. Glickman died shortly afterwards in hospital, the cause of death in both cases being a fractured skull. Mr. Foskett was also taken to hospital for a stomach washout. He made a second suicide attempt three days later, which was also unsuccessful.

When Mr. Foskett appeared at the Central Criminal Court on 22 November 1985—six months later—he was convicted of two offences of manslaughter, both by reason of diminished responsibility. The court had before it three medical reports—one from Dr. Paul Bowden in his capacity as consultant forensic psychiatrist to Her Majesty’s prison, Brixton, where Mr. Foskett had been held on remand, one from Dr. Patrick Galloway, consultant forensic psychiatrist at St. George’s hospital and one from Dr. Hirst, consultant psychiatrist at Goodmayes hospital. All three doctors agreed that Mr. Foskett was suffering from a severe depressive illness at the time of the offence and that he continued to need treatment for his depression. However, they also agreed that in the six months since his offence, during which time he had received appropriate treatment for his condition, there had been a marked improvement in his mental state. In their view, so long as Mr. Foskett continued to receive the appropriate treatment for his illness, he was unlikely to pose a significant danger to other people and did not require conditions of security. It was their unanimous recommendation that treatment could safety be administered at Goodmayes hospital.

The court accepted the psychiatrists’ recommendations, making a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 placing Mr. Foskett in Goodmayes hospital, together with a restriction order under section 41 of the Act. The latter order ensures that Mr. Foskett cannot be set at liberty without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or a decision by a mental health review tribunal.

Mr. Bendall

Will my hon. Friend say where Mr. Foskett received his treatment while he was in custody before trial?

Mr. Mellor

He was treated in Brixton prison while on remand. All that followed flowed from the judge’s order, which directed that Mr. Foskett be placed at a specific hospital. It was not a special hospital order that provided for any form of security. The evidence before the judge was that Mr. Foskett did not require any security. I stress that, because many of the powers that might have flowed from a special hospital order do not arise in this case.

As my hon. Friend realises, I cannot comment on the court’s decision. it is fundamental that the Government do not seek to interfere in the decisions of the judiciary or to question the exercise of its discretion. Parliament provides the courts with powers to deal appropriately with all types of offender, but it is for the court to decide in an individual case what the appropriate sentence should be. I can say, however, that judges at the Central Criminal Court are very experienced in dealing with cases like this one.

It is, of course, essential that courts should have full information on which to base their decisions, and that was ​ so in this case. The court had the three reports from psychiatrists, which I have mentioned, which were able to take account of the period Mr. Foskett had spent on remand, not just the few horrifying moments in which the dreadful killings took place. It also had a full description of the facilities and accommodation available at Goodmayes hospital, so that it knew precisely in what circumstances Mr. Foskett would be held and how he would be treated. If the court had been dissatisfied or worried, it could have called for further reports or made a different disposal, but it did not do so. I am sure the court thought very carefully about these matters and took the decision which seemed proper on the evidence before it.

It is normal practice for my Department, when receiving a court order, to call for copies of any medical reports which may have been made and to confirm that the placement is an appropriate one. If there seems to be any reason to think that the placement is inappropriate—for example, if we are not sure that it is sufficiently secure —we consult the responsible medical officer, but —I stress this point, as it is relevant to my hon. Friend’s anxiety—the Home Secretary has no power in such circumstances to direct that a particular patient should be transferred. Accordingly, if the patient’s responsible medical officer And the hospital managers are satisfied that the placement is appropriate, there is no action which the Home Secretary—or the Secretary of State for Social Services—can take to effect that patient’s transfer to a different hospital. That is the rub of my hon. Friend’s anxiety.

My hon. Friend has been punctilious in carrying out his obligations on behalf of his constituents, and he wrote a letter expressing his worry. That letter reached the Home Office before Goodmayes had sent details of Mr. Foskett’s reception. I immediately arranged for Dr. Knapman, Mr. Foskett’s responsible medical officer, to be consulted urgently on the suitability of Mr. Foskett’s placement at Goodmayes hospital. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security similarly arranged for my hon. Friend’s concern to be drawn to the attention of the health authority.

I am sorry that as a result of those steps being taken there was a longer delay in replying to my hon. Friend’s letter than I should have wished. I hope he understands that inquiries needed to be made. I regret that that time elapsed.

I sought to explain the position in my letter of 5 February, and further on 17 February, when I was able to tell my hon. Friend that Dr. Knapman has confirmed that in his opinion Mr. Foskett remains free of any symptoms of mental disorder and poses no risk of any sort to anyone at present and that there is no case for transferring him from Goodmayes hospital. That being the responsible medical officer’s view, there is nothing that I can do about the matter. It is for the responsible medical officer to make his decision.

That is the case at the moment, but I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance which he seeks, which is that I shall ensure that Mr. Foskett’s case is kept under close scrutiny, and if there is any evidence of any deterioration in his mental state or general behaviour I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall not hesitate to take up with the responsible medical officer once again the question of Mr. Foskett’s placement at Goodmayes hospital.

Although, as I have explained, the Home Secretary has no power to order the transfer of a restricted patient from one hospital to another against the advice of the ​ responsible medical officer, such a patient cannot be given permission to leave the hospital, even for a short period, without my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s consent. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend’s consent would not be given unless he was ​ satisfied that the patient could re-enter the community without danger to the public. I very much hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will have been reassured by what I have been able to tell him this evening.

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.

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 29 January 1986.

I do understand the very great sense of commitment that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) feels about this sad case, and I am most grateful to him for the acknowledgement he has made of the exceptional treatment this case has received in the Home Office, details of which I shall be happy to put on the record this evening.

As he has indicated, my hon. Friend has taken a personal interest in the case of this unfortunate woman, and he has written to me about it on several occasions. I have also received numerous other representations on Mrs. Megginson’s behalf. As my hon. Friend has said, it is an ​ unusual case. In September 1983, some two years and four months ago, at the Central Criminal Court, Mrs. Megginson, who was then aged 62 was convicted of the murder of her 79-year-old co-habitee. Although the offence had taken place in the south of France, it was justiciable here by virtue of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The relationship between the couple was of long standing but, in 1980 or 1981, Mrs. Megginson’s co-habitee started an association with a younger French woman. Matters came to a head in October 1982 and Mrs. Megginson killed him by striking him at least three times with a champagne bottle. She immediately returned to this country and confessed to the killing.

At her trial, Mrs. Megginson invited the jury to convict her of the lesser offence of manslaughter because, first, when she struck her co-habitee she did not intend his death or to cause him grievous bodily harm and, secondly. when she struck him it was because she had been provoked to such a degree as to cause her to lose self-control. That issue went before the jury, as happens in all criminal cases, but after hearing all the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence, the jury decided—albeit by a majority of 10:2 — that the charge of murder was proved. The law provides that only one penalty may be imposed following a conviction of murder, and that is life imprisonment, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to vary such a sentence. Mrs. Megginson exercised her right of appeal without success and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must proceed on the basis that she was rightly convicted of murder and properly sentenced to life imprisonment.

There is no other basis on which Ministers could exercise the powers given to them by Parliament, which do not include any powers to impose any different views other than those which the courts have taken on these points of conviction and sentence.

The release of a life sentence prisoner is at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but, under the provisions of section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, he may authorise release only if he is recommended to do so by the parole board, and after he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice and, if available, the trial judge.

There are two essential ingredients to the decision whether a life sentence prisoner should be released: has he or she been detained for long enough to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the offence, and, is the risk to the public acceptable? My right hon. Friend looks to the judiciary for advice on the time to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution arid deterrence and to the parole board for advice on risk. He is, however, not bound to accept a recommendation for release made by the parole board; nor is he bound by the views of the judiciary, although, of course, he attaches much weight to them.

There are no fixed times at which the release of a life sentence prisoner must be formally considered by the parole board machinery. It is for my right hon. Friend to decide when this should be done. Under the revised procedure for the review of life sentence cases announced on 30 November 1983 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Brittan) when Home Secretary, the date of the first formal review is decided by the Home Secretary after obtaining an initial view from the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge on the length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of ​ retribution and deterrence for the offence. The first formal review will normally take place three years before the expiry of that period to give sufficient time for preparation and, where necessary, further testing before release is finally authorised, if the parole board should recommend it.

The decision when to fix the first formal review of a life sentence prisoner’s case is not normally taken until after the prisoner has been detained for at least three or four years. However, it was recognised that there were unusual and exceptional features about Mrs. Megginson’s case and, in those circumstances, it was decided to ask the judiciary for its views on the retributive and deterrent element of the sentence at a much earlier stage than usual. This was done in May 1985—a little over 18 months after Mrs. Megginson’s conviction. In the light of the judiciary’s views, I decided that the case should be referred to the local review committee at the prison within weeks after receiving the judicial view. I decided also that the review should take place commencing in September 1985 as the first stage of the formal parole board review mechanism.

It might assist if I make clear the stages that were then followed. When the local review committee considers the case of a life sentence prisoner, it has before it all the information available about the offence for which the life sentence was imposed and the circumstances in which it was committed; the prisoner’s history, including any previous offences; the assessments and opinions of doctors who may have examined the prisoner before the trial; and any remarks made by the trial judge. It also has copies of all the reports made previously by the staff at the prisons in which the prisoner has been detained and reports prepared specially for the review, together with any representations which the prisoner may have made to the committee, as he or she is entitled to do. In the light of all this information, the committee makes a recommendation on the prisoner’s suitability for release.

All the papers are then sent to the Home Office, with the local review committee’s recommendation. The case is very carefully considered in the Home Office, in consultation with the Department’s professional advisers. Sometimes, reports from independent doctors, including psychiatrists, are obtained. An assessment is made of all the considerations, including the possible risk to the public if the prisoner were to be released and the case is then referred to the parole board. All this takes time, and prisoners are themselves warned not to expect a decision in their case until at least six months after the local review.

The parole board, which does not necessarily endorse the recommendation made by the local review committee, may recommend either that the prisoner should be given a provisional date for release or that the case should be ​ reviewed again after a specified period. If it does the latter, my right hon. Friend has no power to authorise the prisoner’s release and the further review follows the same procedure, starting once again with the local review committee in the prison in which the prisoner is located.

Mrs. Megginson’s case was duly reviewed by the local review committee at Durham prison in September last year. The internal procedures to which I have referred have been completed and the papers have been referred to the parole board. The case will be considered by the parole board next month—only five months after the local review committee procedure began.

That is another sign of recognition in the Home Office that the circumstances of the case merit processing faster than we are generally able to achieve, given the pressure of work, in all of the many cases that come before us. I know that my hon. Friend will understand if I cannot speculate on the outcome of the parole board’s consideration of Mrs. Megginson’s case or when she might be released. I can assure my hon. Friend that the decision will be conveyed to her as soon as possible after the parole board gives its decision to us.

Sir Anthony Grant

I think that my hon. Friend said that the case will be considered by the parole board next month—in February.

Mr. Mellor

The lifer panel of the parole board will consider the matter next month. The decision will be conveyed to me. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall personally ensure, as I have tried to do throughout the case, that matters are then handled expeditiously.

What happens then will depend very much on what the parole board says. Obviously, I must not say anything that would influence its decision one way or another. Parliament established the parole board procedure to ensure that the public had the additional safeguard, and fetter on the Home Secretary’s discretion of independent evaluation by a lifer panel, which consists of a High Court judge, a psychiatrist and two other members.

I understand my hon. Friend’s proper concern to ensure that Mrs. Megginson should not be in prison for any longer than is necessary. My right hon. Friend has to act within the statutory framework and he has to give due weight to the views of the judiciary when deciding when it would be right to commence the formal review. We have done that. He then has to await the parole board’s deliberations, which will happen next month.

I assure my hon. Friend that we have treated this case exceptionally and given it considerable priority by comparison with the normal run of murder cases, and I hope to be able to give him further advice before too many weeks have elapsed.