UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • David Mellor – 1986 Speech on Dennis Foskett

    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.

  • Vivian Bendell – 1986 Speech on Dennis Foskett

    Below is the text of the speech made by Vivian Bendell, the then Conservative MP for Ilford North, in the House of Commons on 24 February 1986.

    This matter is worrying and causing considerable problems for some of my constituents. It concerns Dennis Foskett, who last November was committed for trial at the Old Bailey, having committed a double murder in May 1985.

    In many respects this is a tragic case, as the two people killed were the man’s doctor and the man’s wife, who tried to intervene. The real and urgent problem that is causing my constituents and myself concern is that the court recommended that Mr. Foskett be put in an open hospital — Goodmayes hospital — which is an open mental hospital in my constituency. Obviously my constituents are concerned that this person, having committed a double murder, should be in a hospital which is generally open. It means that he has fairly easy access to the grounds of the hospital and to areas outside the grounds.

    I accept that much of the problem relates to the Mental Health Act 1983, but I feel, as do many of my constituents, that a period of six months between May 1985 and November 1985, when he came to trial, is rather a short time in which to assess an individual who has committed two horrific crimes, one against his doctor and the other against his wife. Therefore, I understand the concern of my constituents. I have many letters written by my constituents concerning this matter.

    One of the other concerns is that the grounds of the hospital and the gates to the grounds are open, as are the buildings of the hospital. Therefore, anybody can walk freely from the hospital building or the grounds in virtually any part of the day or night. It means that there is an element of risk to children at an adjacent primary school. Can anyone with any certainty and with any guarantee say sincerely, even with the best professional experience and advice available, that an individual who has committed such crimes may not on another occasion take it upon himself to find a way out of the mental institution, which is completely open, and commit a further crime? That is the essence of the problem which faces my constituents. I have some sympathy with them.

    Others have also expressed concern about the placing of Mr. Foskett in this mental hospital. The Confederation of Health Service employees has lodged complaints with the local hospital management committee. I have also received verbal complaints from members of staff at the hospital.

    I have been in correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security and the Home Office. I am a little perturbed at the time that it has taken to receive certain answers. I originally wrote to the DHSS on 30 December and received an acknowledgement on 9 January. I then heard nothing from the DHSS or the Home Office, the DHSS having informed me that the matter was the responsibility of the Home Office. I wrote to the Home Office again on 20 January, and did not receive a reply until 5 February. This matter has caused a great deal of local concern. It has been well reported in local newspapers and on Essex Radio. There has been much local concern.

    I shall give an example to the House of how easy it is to gain access to Goodmayes hospital. A reporter of a national Sunday newspaper was able to go to Goodmayes hospital quite openly. He went to the reception desk and asked which ward Dennis Foskett was in. He was directed to the ward concerned, and when he arrived at the ward he asked a doctor or nurse where Mr. Foskett was. He was pointed out to him at the end of the ward. The reporter then took a photograph and left the building. I do not condone such an attitude or such irresponsibility by a national newspaper, but it emphasises how easy it is to enter some of these mental hospitals and, therefore, how easy it would be for a patient to get out of such a hospital.

    I understand the problems of my hon. Friend the Minister with regard to the 1983 Act, but I challenge that Act. I do not doubt that sooner or later someone will walk out of a free hospital and commit another such offence. Society generally wants to avoid that, and it is right that society is concerned about this issue.

    I firmly believe that a period of six months is not long enough to assess someone who has committed such a crime. That person should be kept in an establishment for rather longer, so that a fuller assessment can be made. Perhaps, after a period of time, if the person is seen to be of stable nature, it might be appropriate to consider moving him to a place with more freedom.

    I understand the concern felt by my constituents. I thank the House for the opportunity to bring the matter before it tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will give some assurance that such cases in open hospitals will be closely monitored, and also that he receives regular reports from the local hospital management committee or other responsible bodies about the progress of individuals put into those institutions for the sort of offence committed by Mr. Foskett.

  • Roger Sims – 1986 Speech on Tobacco Advertising in Sport

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roger Sims, the then Conservative MP for Chislehurst, in the House of Commons on 21 February 1986.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    I am not an anti-smoking fanatic. I am a non-smoker, but I accept that many people, including members of my family and friends, find pleasure in smoking. However, I confess that I sometimes wish that smokers would be more considerate about where and how they smoke. I do not pursue a vendetta against smokers, although smokers are now in a minority in our community.

    The evidence is massive and incontrovertible on the extent to which smoking is responsible for disease and death. Smoking is the largest avoidable cause of illness and death in Britain.

    I commend to hon. Members the publication “The Big Kill” which analyses the figures for deaths from smoking-related diseases, the illnesses caused by smoking and how hospital beds are occupied unnecessarily. The figures are analysed district by district and give food for thought.

    The chief medical officer at the Department of Health and Social Security estimates that 100,000 premature deaths per year are caused by smoking. It is a sobering figure. This very week 2,000 people died earlier than they might have done because of smoking-related diseases. If tobacco had just been discovered and had been subjected to the tests to which new products are subjected it would never have been allowed on the market. However, I accept that smoking is now well established and that prohibition would be neither practicable nor even desirable. It is certainly not practicable and I do not advocate it. However, it is the duty of Government and Parliament to ensure that the population is informed and educated about the effects of smoking. It is our duty to encourage smokers, if they will not cease smoking, to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke. We have a special duty to dissuade the young from taking up smoking in the first place.

    The Health Education Council and Action on Smoking and Health both receive some financial aid from the DHSS and they both mount energetic campaigns. However, their resources are pitifully small compared to the enormous sums spent by the tobacco industry in promoting and advertising its products. Some of that promotion is carried out by sponsorship. There are restrictions on the extent to which tobacco products may be advertised. There are health warnings on packets and on advertisements and one cannot advertise cigarettes on television.

    My specific concern is the sponsorship by tobacco companies of sporting events. The purpose of sponsorship of such events is quite clearly to publicise the company and its products and services with a view to selling them. That is a perfectly proper activity and one that is carried out by banks, insurance companies and a number of commercial concerns for the purpose of getting their names across to the target audience. They may well feel that by spending their funds sponsoring a concert or a cricket match or some similar activity, they are getting to that audience more effectively than by advertising in a newspaper.

    Mr. Neil Macfarlane (Sutton and Cheam)

    I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend’s train of thought and I ​ certainly agree with him that nobody in the House would accept for one moment that the tobacco companies are benevolent organisations. They are there for a commercial and presentational role. No doubt my hon. Friend will talk the House through the first three clauses in his Bill. The fourth clause is fairly straightforward. Clause 1(1) says:

    “The Secretary of State may by Order make provision for the prohibition of expenditure on sponsorship by tobacco companies of sporting events,”

    Is my hon. Friend able to rest easy with that, because many hon. Members on the Government side feel it is more akin to the sentiments of the Opposition? Is my hon. Friend happy and are his constituents happy with that phraseology? Which Secretary of State does it mean?

    Mr. Sims

    I am perfectly content with that. That is the object of my Bill and precisely the argument that I am seeking to develop, about why a Secretary of State should be given that power. I think it will be the Secretary of State for Social Services, but to the extent that we are dealing with sports matters it may be a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is replying to the debate so it would appear to fall within the ambit of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    I am not critical of sponsorship as a form of advertising, and cigarette companies sponsor sports events for exactly the same purpose as any other commercial concern, to sell their products and to get their names known. At some sporting functions sponsored by cigarette companies, the companies sell or even give away their products. The object is quite clearly to promote the product and get new customers for it. My objection to tobacco companies sponsoring sporting events is that it gives the impression that there is some connection, some correlation between sport, which is a good healthy activity, and smoking. The companies hope that smoking will be perceived as a healthy activity, when we all know that it is precisely the reverse.

    During the past few years, general sponsorship has grown substantially. Between 1981 and 1984, the number of companies involved in sports sponsorship doubled from more than 700 to more than 1,400. The estimated expenditure on that sponsorship increased from £50 million to about £112 million. Of the 1,400 companies involved in this sponsorship, only 22 are tobacco companies, but it is noticeable that they are especially involved in the events that receive much media coverage. To their credit, sports such as swimming and athletics do not accept sponsorship from tobacco companies, and the Football Association has said that it will not accept sponsorship from tobacco companies because it does not believe that it would be appropriate to do so.

    There are two important aspects of the media coverage of such events. The first is the extent to which a sponsored sport appears on television. It is estimated that, in one year, about 365 hours of sport sponsored by tobacco companies is seen on television. By far the largest is snooker, which occupies about 176 hours. Cricket occupies 65 hours and many other sports, including tennis, golf and darts, are seen for many hours on television. In all of them, the product name is seen frequently and displayed in large, unavoidable terms. Indeed, in some cases, the participants can be seen on television smoking cigarettes.

    That raises the question whether the BBC is allowing its charter to be contravened, because it states specifically ​ that there shall be no advertising. The ITV rules are that there should be no advertising of tobacco products, especially cigarettes. But that is frequently done in breach of the advertising industry’s code of practice. The voluntary code of practice on tobacco products states:

    “Advertisements should not imply that smoking is associated with success in sport. They should not depict people participating in any active sporting pursuit or obviously about to do so or just having done so, or spectators at any organised sporting occasion.”

    Anyone who watches television for any time will draw his own conclusion as to the extent to which the code is being complied with.

    One clause of the sports sponsorship agreement requires that static signs displaying the name of the sponsor or the product should be placed so as to minimise the possibility of freeze frame shots having the signs in view for long periods. Sometimes they seem to be placed so as to maximise that. Another part of the code provides that:

    “House brand names or symbols on participants or their equipment or on officials of tobacco sponsored events, must not come within camera range.”

    How often does one see on sports cars and on people’s clothing the name clearly shown? Hon. Members can judge for themselves the effectiveness of those agreements and codes.

    What worries me especially is the effect on children. It has been estimated that a quarter of all children under the age of 16 watch Embassy snooker. It must have some effect on them. Dr. Frank Ledwith, research fellow at the department of education, university of Manchester, has carried out some very interesting research. He states:

    “A representative survey of 880 children in first, third and fifth years was carried out in five secondary schools in one education authority using an anonymous questionnaire. It was found that children were most aware of the cigarette brands which are most frequently associated with sponsored sporting events on TV. Children’s ‘TV viewing of a recent snooker championship sponsored by one cigarette manufacturer was positively correlated with the proportion of children associating that brand, and other brands used in TV sponsorship, with sport. Following a snooker championship sponsored by another cigarette manufacturer, a second survey was carried out on a new sample showing that awareness of this brand, and the proportion of children associating it with sport, had increased from the first survey.”

    There cannot be much clearer proof than that of the effect of television sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies.

    One could ask whether all this matters, whether it is important and whether it has any effect. The fact is that children are a very good market for tobacco products. Recent figures show that 41 per cent. of children are smoking at the age of 16. This is a horrifying figure. It has also been demonstrated that between the ages of 11 and 16, children spend about £70 million on cigarettes.

    This is illegal and must be a reflection upon tobacco retailers. Somebody is selling the product to children. But that is very much to the advantage of the tobacco companies. It is a lucrative market for them. There is also a good chance that if children begin to smoke at that age they will be cigarette smokers for life. It is no wonder therefore that tobacco companies believe it to be particularly worthwhile to sponsor sporting events.

    My Bill proposes to prevent that kind of sponsorship. It will not stop it immediately but it will be stopped over a period of three years. It is argued that if sponsorship is banned, sporting events will collapse.

    Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Billericay)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Mr. Sims

    I suspect that I am about to answer my hon. Friend’s question, but I shall allow him, nevertheless, to make his point.

    Mr. Proctor

    I am not sure that my hon. Friend intends to deal with it. Therefore, I should like to put my question to him before he deals with the next stage of his argument. My hon. Friend is a distinguished parliamentary adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. Would my hon. Friend extend the principle of his Bill to whisky companies and prevent them from sponsoring sporting events?

    Mr. Sims

    No, I would not. My hon. Friend is right to point out the position which I occupy, but I find no difficulty in reconciling the two kinds of sponsorship. There is a clear difference between alcohol and cigarette products. If it is used in moderation, alcohol can do one good. Most of us enjoy a little alcohol. The problem arises when the use of alcohol is abused—

    Mr. Proctor rose—

    Mr. Sims

    Let me finish my sentence. I am as concerned as anybody about the abuse of alcohol. I am involved with various committees that seek to educate and inform people about that problem. It has been proved beyond doubt that cigarettes are harmful per se. Therefore, alcohol and cigarettes cannot be compared. I have no difficulty in reconciling my views on these two products.

    Mr. Proctor rose—

    Mr. Sims

    I do not wish to be drawn into an argument, because I want other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. However, I shall allow my hon. Friend to get in again because he is obviously worried about this point.

    Mr. Proctor

    My hon. Friend said that some people believe that alcohol does one good. Therefore he says that people should be allowed to make a choice. A number of my constituents—though not me, because I am a nonsmoker —believe that it is therapeutic to smoke cigarettes. Why does he take a different view in principle about alcohol compared with tobacco?

    Mr. Sims

    The short answer is that I have ample medical evidence in respect of both. The spirits industry takes it upon itself not to advertise on television. I do not think that a precise comparison can be made, but I do not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) for trying it on.

    Some of my colleagues might suggest that the sports would collapse without the sponsorship of tobacco companies. That is hard to believe. I have said that about £112 million a year is spent on sports sponsorship. Of that, about £8 million is estimated to come from the tobacco companies. One can hardly suggest that losing £8 million would make all that much difference and that it could not be replaced. A large number of companies would be happy to take over the sponsorship. When the sponsorship by a tobacco products company was withdrawn from a London orchestra, other sponsors quickly stepped in. The statistics show that, if one sponsor withdraws, another is usually arranged within two or three months.

    I am sure that the sports will find no difficulty, especially as the provisions will be phased in over a three-year period, in finding other sponsors. This applies ​ particularly to those companies I have mentioned that enjoy a great deal of television coverage. I understand that there is a waiting list of companies interested in sponsoring certain sports. One imagines that some of the up and coming companies in the electronics business would welcome such exposure.
    I suggest that the Bill will not be any danger to sports. I gently point out to Ministers that the Government raised £4·5 billion a year in taxes on tobacco and that a further tax of 0·25p on 20 cigarettes would produce enough money to cover all sports sponsorship money at present received from tobacco companies.

    I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) —who has responsibility for sport, will tell me that, until now, this matter has been handled by voluntary agreement and that he is negotiating a further voluntary agreement and would like to continue along that course. I understand that, but I am bound to say that experience suggests that any such voluntary agreement is likely to be breached in as many respects as the existing voluntary agreement. I suggest that the fact that a new agreement is pending does not prevent my hon. Friend from accepting the Bill. My legislation will not become active until the Secretary of State makes an order to implement it. It will be enforced over a three-year period.

    Smoking is dangerous to health—it says so on every packet. Our duty is to discourage smoking. One of the best ways of doing this is by supporting my Bill, which will curtail and eventually eliminate sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies. I hope that the Bill has the support of the House.

  • Geoffrey Pattie – 1986 Speech on Sub-Post Offices

    Below is the text of the speech made  by Geoffrey Pattie, the then Minister for Information Technology, in the House of Commons on 21 February 1986.

    I am pleased to be able to reply to this debate and I welcome the opportunity to reassure the House, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in particular, about the Government’s policy towards the sub-post office network. I am sure that he can distinguish between matters properly within the purview of the Government and matters belonging to the Post Office in its capacity as a manager.

    I can well understand that the combination of a number of developments in recent years has given rise to concern among many sub-postmasters about their future in the counters business. The developments are first the urban closure programme, secondly the advent of changes in the method of paying social security benefits, and thirdly the Post Office’s current intention to move to annual revision of sub-postmasters’ remuneration. I recognise the understandable fears of sub-postmasters about the implications of those developments, and I want to take this opportunity to reassure them that the Government appreciate their concern, and to explain why it is important to keep the developments in perspective.

    First, the House will recollect that the urban closure programme was debated at length in January last year. For that reason I do not propose to take time this afternoon to go over the same ground again. Suffice it to say that the Post Office was implementing a programme to reduce the size of the urban network by closing offices that were in excess of the long-standing criterion of providing offices at intervals of not less than a mile in towns. The programme was decided on for good commercial reasons, and the Government were satisfied that the proposed closures were not inconsistent with our commitment to the maintenance of an adequate post office network, or with ​ the Post Office’s statutory duty to have regard both to economy, efficiency and the social needs of the United Kingdom.

    Although the debate last year was focused on the urban network, the hon. Gentleman took an active part in it, and he may recall the comments that I made on that occasion about rural post offices. In particular, I explained that the Post Office did not have any plans to reduce the size of the rural network.

    That is not to say that some rural post offices do not close, and will not close in the future. I understand that there is a net loss of between 80 and 90 rural offices each year because, although new offices may open in rural areas, their number is exceeded by cases where a sub-postmaster retires or resigns and the Post Office cannot find a suitable replacement to take on the office. That has been the position for many years, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not continue.

    The Post Office is well aware of the impact that the loss of a village sub-post office can have on rural communities, and is always ready to consider the possibility of arrangements to retain a post office facility in a village, albeit on a limited basis. The scope for doing so increased last year when, as part of its efforts to preserve the rural network, the Post Office agreed with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that some post offices could move to part-time opening.

    The second development in recent years which I believe has given sub-postmasters a sense of concern has been the advent of changes in the payment of social security benefits. These included the option for people to have their benefits paid direct into their bank or building society account by automated credit transfer, or ACT, rather than collect them every week at their local post office. More recently, concern has been aroused by the suggestion that inducements should be offered to people to switch to ACT. Indeed, I regret that, whether by accident or design, the position with regard to the payment of social security payments by automated credit transfer seems to be the subject of rather widespread misapprehension. To judge from letters that I have received that topic has prompted undue and unnecessary concern among many subpostmasters and their customers. To the extent that that is the result of genuine misunderstanding, it is unfortunate. But in a small number of cases it seems to me likely that pensioners and others using sub-post offices have been deliberately misinformed and caused to worry quite unnecessarily. If that has indeed been the case, it is most irresponsible.

    Therefore, I welcome the opportunity today to make the position clear.
    As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the origin of the matter is the scrutiny that a team, reporting to my noble Friend Lord Rayner, then Sir Derek Rayner, undertook in 1979 on the arrangements for paying social security benefits. The scrutiny team recommended, among other things, the introduction of direct crediting and a reduction in the frequency of benefit payments. Those measures, together with the simplification of administration, were forecast to produce significant savings in DHSS costs.

    The Social Services Select Committee substantially endorsed the recommendations, with some modifications. Following careful consideration of their implications, and after widespread consultation, the Government accepted the modified proposals, but with some important changes. In particular, the Government considered the impact of changes in payment arrangements on the Post Office network and on beneficiaries. It should be noted that the ​ Government did not take up the Committee’s recommendation that, as an incentive for beneficiaries to move to direct crediting, benefit payments should be paid two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears.

    In May 1981, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the then Secretary of State for Social Services, announced that the Government had decided that most beneficiaries should have the option—I stress that this was an option, with no element of compulsion—to have their benefits paid direct into hank or other accounts. He also announced that it was the Government’s intention to move to a position where, for mothers claiming child benefit for the first time, four-weekly payment would be the norm. Mothers already receiving child benefit would have the choice of switching to four-weekly rather than weekly payment.

    It was recognised that those changes would lead to a fall in Department of Health and Social Security business over post office counters, but it was forecast that this would be more than compensated for by additional business from new and existing customers. It was also recognised that within this overall picture there would be variations and in order to provide a further safeguard it was announced that the Government would make available up to £2 million over five years to help smaller sub-post offices adversely affected if the new business did not grow at the same rate as DHSS business reduced. Following discussions with the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-postmasters, agreement on the details of the fund was announced in May 1983.

    It might be noted that, so far, payments from the fund have been far less than were expected. In part this reflects the effects of the industrial dispute at the DHSS computer centre in Newcastle in 1984 but in large measure it reflects the upward trend in the volume of counters business since the announcement in May 1981.

    The forecasts of new business included the effect of provisions that were subsequently enacted in the British Telecommunications Act 1981 enabling the Post Office to provide counter services for a wider range of public sector customers. Within these provisions the Post Office has been able to win a range of business including the sale of bus and train tickets and cards, which has contributed to an overall increase in the volume of counters business since 1981. For example there was an increase of 3·5 per cent. in 1984–85.

    A further factor has been the lower than expected take-up of the option of payment by ACT with, as a consequence, lower than forecast savings in DHSS costs. This point was noted in a report that the Comptroller and Auditor-General prepared and published in February last year, following an investigation by the National Audit Office. The report was subsequently considered by the Public Accounts Committee which, after examining the DHSS, published its conclusions and recommendations last June in its 20th report in the 1984–85 Session.

    Among its recommendations, the Committee expressed its surprise that, when the shortfall in expected savings became apparent, the DHSS did not give fresh consideration to offering direct financial inducements. The Committee recommended that early consideration be given to targeting inducements towards those most likely to be receptive to the idea. I should stress that this is a recommendation made by the PAC, not a decision made ​ by the Government. The Committee also welcomed a survey being undertaken by the DHSS of public attitudes towards methods and frequency of payment of benefits.

    Together with a number of other reports from the PAC the 20th report was debated in the House on 24 October. This was shortly after the Government had published their response to the report in a Treasury minute in which we noted that the DHSS would give further consideration to the issue of inducements to accept payments by ACT in the light of the survey of public attitudes.

    In response to representations we have received about the PAC’s recommendations on inducements, both I and my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the DHSS have made it clear that any consideration of the way in which benefits are to be paid will have regard to the effect that any changes will have on the post office network. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) gave the hon. Gentleman that assurance when he wrote to him last September and I am happy to repeat it today.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is therefore considering the PAC’s recommendations in the light of the outcome of the survey of public attitudes and the representations that have been received on this matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend is hoping to make an announcement on this subject shortly.

    Although I cannot anticipate that announcement, I want to emphasise that the Government have always made it clear that payment by ACT is an option that is open to people to choose freely, without compulsion or coercion. We have no intention of depriving pensioners and others of the option to continue to collect their payments in cash from the local post office. We recognise that for many people, even those who have bank accounts, the weekly visit to the post office can be both an incentive to gel out of the house and a valued social occasion.

    Mr. Ashdown

    I am grateful for those reassuring words. I may want to intervene again, so I will try to be brief. The Minister accused certain elements of irresponsibility. I think he must recognise that if there were to be a bribe, of whatever sum—if it is as high as £50 it makes the matter worse —it would have a devastating effect. If the Government are going through the process of making up their minds, bearing in mind the considerations the Minister has mentioned, I am sure that he must realise that those who have the best interests of the sub-post office network at heart will naturally want to mobilise public opinion to impress that fact upon the Government. That is in no sense irresponsible. It seems to me to be very responsible in the best interests of the network.

    Mr. Pattie

    I shall move to the third development which has, in my view, given rise to concern among sub-postmasters. This debate is on a very important subject and we have limited time so I shall press on.

    I want to deal with the frequency with which sub-postmasters’ remuneration is assessed. That is, of course, a matter between the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and the Government are not directly involved. But, given the importance that the Post Office attaches to this issue the Post Office chairman felt that I should be aware of the background and it may be helpful to the House if I describe this as he has explained it to me. The Post Office has, since last April, ​ been involved in negotiations with the National Federation of Sub-postmasters on the sub-postmasters’ 1985 pay settlement. However, the main point at issue has not been directly one of pay, although it is related to pay. The pay offer itself that the Post Office made was in line with settlements the Post Office has secured with other pay groups within the corporation.

    The issue in dispute is the frequency with which individual remuneration levels are assessed. A sub-postmaster is not an employee but an agent of the Post Office, engaged on a contract for services, and his remuneration is governed by the amount of business transacted at his office. Under the system currently in force —which dates back to 1908 —each office’s business levels and hence remuneration are re-assessed every three years. If the new level of business is higher than the old, at least 12 months’ arrears are paid to the sub-postmaster when his remuneration is increased, but there is no similar retrospective device for the Post Office if business declines. In addition, sub-postmasters have the opportunity to call for a special upward revision of their remuneration between triennial revisions if they feel that their business has increased by more than a small amount. But there is no similar opportunity for the Post Office to seek a reciprocal reduction when work falls.

    The Post Office has therefore required, as part of the 1985 pay settlement, a change to a system of annual revisions. Although I understand that both sides have worked hard to try to reach a negotiated settlement there is no prospect of agreement on the sticking point of a change to annual revision. The Post Office has therefore informed the federation that it will introduce annual revision from next September and is now taking the measures necessary to put this into effect. I understand that the federation has reluctantly noted the position. The Post Office chairman has told me that compensation for the change of, on average, £90 will be paid to sub-postmasters.

    Earlier in my speech I referred to the £2 million fund which was set up in 1983. I would like to tell the House ​ that Mr. Alban Morgan, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, has been in touch with my officials to inquire whether there is any possibility of extending the life of the fund beyond its present closing date of 30 April 1987. Mr. Morgan has been told that the Government would be willing to consider any proposals which the federation might wish to put to us. I am happy to have the opportunity today to confirm this.

    The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the importance of the sub-post office network in this country.

    Mr. Ashdown rose

    Mr. Pattie

    We are about to conclude and I would like to summarise.

    There should be no doubt about the Government’s recognition and appreciation of the important and valuable role that sub-post offices play in the communities they serve. This is true of the local post office in the town. In rural areas the village post office very often plays a key role in the quality of village life, and the Government wholeheartedly support the efforts the Post Office is making to arrest the erosion of the rural network. Indeed, the £2 million fund for sub-postmasters was tangible evidence of our genuine concern about the network, in particular the smaller sub-offices, many of which are of course in rural areas.

    But the detailed operation of the counters business is the responsibility of the Post Office board and counter management—not the Government—and this includes negotiations with sub-postmasters on their remuneration and conditions. However, it remains the Government’s policy to encourage and support the counters business in its efforts to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. It is through success in those efforts that the business can achieve success in the market place to ensure its long-term viability and preservation of the rural network.

  • Paddy Ashdown – 1986 Speech on Sub-Post Offices

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paddy Ashdown, the then Liberal MP for Yeovil, in the House of Commons on 21 February 1986.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the problems of the sub-post office network in Great Britain. I am grateful to the Minister for Information Technology, who has come to reply to the debate. I hope that we can take some comfort from the fact that the Minister’s responsibilities are primarily to do with new technologies. Perhaps he will have something to say about the application of new technologies to the sub-post office network in Great Britain.

    There are in Britain today some 20,000 sub-post offices, a little less than half of which are in towns, and the remainder in rural areas. They comprise an essential part of the social fabric of Britain. They are also a part of our small business network, the network which the Government seek to encourage, since many employ people in their own right. All of them represent the livelihood of at least one family, frequently a couple in middle age who have sunk their life savings into the enterprise.

    More importantly, every sub-post office in Britain is an essential part of the community in which it exists. For many, especially the poorer in our society who do not have cars, the local sub-post office is also the local shop upon which they rely for their groceries and essentials.

    Sub-post offices are also an essential part of the system of government in Britain. They are responsible, among other things, for 70 per cent. of all Department of Health and Social Security payments. That bald figure does not express their true worth in the welfare system. For many, the local sub-postmaster provides the human face for what is otherwise a cold and insensitive bureaucratic welfare system. As we saw during the Post Office’s recent programme to close down some town sub-post offices, many people regard their local sub-post office as an essential element of their community, at least as important and valuable as the local pub, church or school.

    The value of sub-post offices in not to be measured just in their contribution to Britain’s social fabric. As the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Ronald Dearing, recently admitted to me in a letter commenting on the Post Office’s profit last year of £133·7 million—incidentally, up 15 per cent. on the previous year’s figure—the contribution made by sub-post offices to the corporation’s profits is actually greater than that which derives from the main Crown offices of the Post Office Corporation. In short, the sub-postmaster and the office he runs are not only socially invaluable but also, apparently from the figures which the Post Office has collected, highly efficient.

    Yet this invaluable network, this national asset, is now under threat from the Government, like so many of our other national assets. In the last three years, no fewer than 624 sub-post offices have closed and gone out of business. The number of vacancies for sub-postmasters advertised by the Post Office for which no applications have been received has risen by almost 20 per cent. in the last year alone. That is an increase of one fifth in the number of people who do not think it worth while to apply for subpostmaster vacancies.

    Clearly, something is wrong. In blunt terms, running a sub-post office has recently become increasingly ​ difficult and for many downright impossible. Being a sub-postmaster was never an easy job. It requires a degree of social concern, long hours of work, a desire to serve the public and a great deal of commitment. However, the recent changes in the remuneration offered to the sub-postmaster, together with a squeeze on costs and Government threats about the withdrawal of business, are now seriously undermining the economic viability of much of our sub-post office network. For instance, between 1982 and 1985, whilst the work of sub-post offices has increased, according to the Post Office’s calculations, by nearly 4 per cent. Sub-postmasters’ pay has not even kept pace with the rate of inflation. I shall explain those figures in more detail later.

    I shall give a few facts about sub-postmasters’ pay and conditions. Sub-postmasters are not employed in the accepted sense of the word. They are contracted by the Post Office to provide a service. They have no right to annual leave, although they receive a limited substitution allowance. They do not receive sick pay, although, again, there are limited substitution provisions.

    They have no right of access to ACAS in the event of a dispute with the Post Office, such as is now occurring, and no arbitration agreement with the Post Office on matters directly related to pay and conditions.

    In addition, sub-postmasters are required to meet the full cost of their premises and staff out of their own pockets. That last point is important, because it accounts for one of the pay anomalies which has allowed the Post Office to pretend that it is providing more remuneration to the sub-postmasters than is the case. The Post Office claims that sub-postmasters have a further income from their private business. That is correct, but such private business as they conduct shares the cost of the premises with the post office section and so saves the corporation money by reducing the costs of its element of that service.

    The Post Office lumps together the remuneration for sub-postmasters, the cost of employees and the sub-postmasters’ expenses. The result is that, since 1983, sub-postmasters have been subjected to a reduced net pay improvement because they have had to supplement higher expenses. In the latest pay offer, for example, the Post Office claims to be offering a 5·5 per cent. gross improvement. In fact, that amounts to 4·5 per cent. in the sub-postmaster’s pocket because of the inclusion of expenses in the overall sum. It is 4·5 per cent., when inflation was running a full percentage point higher last year. at 5·7 per cent. Once again, it is the sub-postmaster who ends up paying out of his own pocket to cover expenses which should properly be incurred by the Post Office.

    That all adds up to the fact that many sub-postmasters find it impossible to survive. I shall quote the example of a sub-postmistress in my constituency. She receives gross pay of £410 per month. That is a great deal of money, but after she has paid her expenses she is left with £300 per month for a 44-hour week, which does not include the substantial extra hours that she has to spend on paperwork. Her hourly rate is thus substantially less than that of the cleaner she must employ to keep her premises in order.

    I recently asked the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Ronald Dearing, to give me the figures for remuneration paid to sub-postmasters over the past three years. On the face of it, the figures that he supplied showed an 18 per cent pay increase. However, that figure does not take ​ account of the £60 million of additional business done by the sub-postmasters in 1984–85 as a result of the DHSS dispute.

    As sub-postmasters are paid strictly according to the work they do, that sum must be accounted for separately, leaving a real increase over the three years of 16·22 per cent. —a full 3 per cent. below the prevailing rate of inflation, which measured 19·3 per cent. over the same period.

    All that is happening at a time when sub-postmasters’ work has increased overall by nearly 4 per cent, leaving individuals almost 7 per cent. below what they should have received merely to stand still over the same period.
    That brings us to the position as it stands this year. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters—the recognised body in these matters—has refused to accept the current offer on the grounds that I have explained. The Post Office is now free to, and probably will, impose that agreement on the sub-postmasters. There is no action no arbitration; sub-postmasters can do nothing—they can either like it or lump it. I have no doubt that the majority of them will accept it. It will place even further burdens upon them and undermine further their economic capacity to survive. It will threaten once again the overall integrity of a vital network.

    At the same time, the Post Office has also imposed new conditions for pay review. As part of the last remuneration agreement, a new system of reviews of work was instituted —or rather, required. This system requires annual rather than triennial checks of work. Many sub-postmasters find this unfair. For nearly 80 years, while the volume of business has been steadily increasing through the sub-post offices, the Post Office has been content to have triennial reviews, taking advantage of the fact that the sub-postmaster remained largely unrewarded for increases in work in the periods in between.

    The future business of the sub-post office network will drop because of the withdrawal of Government work. The Post Office insists on having the opportunity to cut pay as frequently as possible.

    Sub-postmasters face yet another threat. The Public Accounts Committee recently recommended that pensioners and others should be offered an inducement, possibly as much as £50, to go over to the automatic credit transfer system for the payment of their welfare and pension benefits. Thus, welfare payments will bypass the sub-post office and go straight into the banks—for those lucky enough to have a bank account.

    If the Government decide to implement this bribe—I call it a bribe advisedly — it will have the most devastating effect on the whole sub-post office network. It will endanger the viability of literally thousands of sub-post offices, leaving those who do not have bank accounts without a local office from which to receive their benefits. No doubt, in cold economic terms, some money will be saved for the Government, but the cost will be more than paid for by those who are among the most disadvantaged in our society and who rely on the sub-post offices as a source for their shopping, as a point of human contact and as an essential ingredient in their own community.

    This amounts to a serious attack on a vital part of Britain’s social fabric. If the sub-post office network is further reduced, the number of our small retail outlets, already in serious decline, will be drastically reduced; the quality of life in many communities, especially the isolated ones, will be further diminished; the livelihood of ​ several thousand small businesses will be seriously endangered; an important and efficient contributor to the Post Offices profits will be threatened, and an important element of the British way of life in our towns and villages will be diminished.

    I hope the Government will recognise the importance of what is at stake. I hope they will make it clear to the Post Office that they regard the sub-post office network as an important national asset which should not be further reduced. I hope the Minister for Information Technology will agree with me that, whatever the reasons for the Government placing a financial squeeze on the Post Office through increased external financing limits, the pressures that this creates should not simply be passed down the line for the sub-postmaster to carry. I hope that he will take this opportunity to state clearly that the Government recognises that the bribe proposed by the PAC would do terrible damage to the sub-post office network. I hope that he will, finally, make it clear that the sub-postmaster should be appropriately rewarded in this year’s pay negotiations.

    What we need is a positive policy to retain our vital sub-post office network. At the very least, this must include a requirement on the Post Office to make good the deficiencies in sub-postmasters’ pay, rather than seeking to use their muscle to impose another inadequate pay deal on those who have served the Post Office and our society so well.

  • Denis Healey – 1986 Speech on the Strategic Defence Initiative

    Below is the text of the speech made by Denis Healey, the then Labour MP for Leeds East, in the House of Commons on 19 February 1986.

    I beg to move,

    That this House regrets Her Majesty’s Government’s support for the Strategic Defence Initiative.

    In some ways the strategic defence initiative is probably the most important issue in the field of foreign and defence policy, disarmament and high technology that the House has discussed for many years. Its supporters and opponents will at least agree on that.

    On 23 March 1983, President Reagan made a speech in which he asked for a fundamental change in the basic policy upon which western security has been built since the second world war. He made this speech without any consultation with any of his allies, although NATO’s nuclear planning group was meeting at that time. He said that the

    “human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations by threatening their existence … peace could not rest much longer on the threat of mutual suicide.”

    The President dedicated himself to produce a defence against nuclear ballistic missiles which would make:

    “nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

    Later in Baltimore, he told schoolchildren that “the hand of providence” inspired that speech.

    The President never explained how ballistic missile defence would protect the world against nuclear bombs which were carried on aircraft, such as those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by cruise missiles, by individuals or in the hold of ships. He never explained how abolishing nuclear weapons would control conventional forces, which in an all-out war could inflict horrific damage, or how he could achieve any of his objectives without reducing the political tensions that have been the cause of the arms race. However, we can all agree that at least it was a noble vision, which has been endorsed by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

    The strategic defence initiative that we are now discussing is very different from what President Reagan proposed nearly three years ago. The American Administration now say that the purpose of research is not to replace nuclear deterrence but to enhance it—to make the mutual suicide pact even more binding than it is today, and to threaten the survival of other nations more effectively. It is already clear that the Administration’s aim for the next 30 years at least will be to protect not the peoples of the world, but American land-based missiles, which are one of the components in America’s strategic nuclear triad.

    “For the foreseeable future,”

    the official American apologia for SDI now recounts,

    “offensive nuclear forces, and the prospect of nuclear retaliation will remain the key element of deterrence.”

    Therefore, simultaneously with SDI, the United States Government are beginning to deploy a whole arsenal of ​ new strategic nuclear weapons—the MX missile, the D5 submarine-launched missile and the Midgetman mobile missile. They foresee an immense increase in funding for research and development into what they call advanced strategic missile systems, which are a new arsenal of weapons that will enter service in the late 1990s when the first strategic defence is planned to be available. That must mean a stupendous acceleration of the arms race, greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war and making disarmament more difficult.

    Indeed, the case against the President’s present proposals was made most eloquently by the President in his original speech when he said:

    “If defensive systems were paired with offensive systems they could be regarded as fostering an aggressive policy, and nobody really wants that.”

    The point that the combination of defence and offensive forces would appear to increase the possibility of a first strike against an enemy was repeated by him in his interview with Soviet journalists only last October, when he pointed out that it would make a first strike more feasible. The point was put most dramatically by ex-President Nixon when he said of the SDI:

    “Such systems would be destabilising if they provided a shield so that you could use the sword.”

    That is the basic case against the attempt to produce a ballistic missile defence, which is the purpose of the SDI.

    It is not surprising that the SDI has been opposed in a somewhat coded way, not only by our Foreign Secretary in his remarkable speech in the middle of last year, for which I paid him tribute, but by two of the past three American Presidents—Presidents Carter and Ford—three of the past four American Defence Secretaries —Secretaries Brown, Schlesinger and McNamara—and all six of the surviving American Defence Secretaries who are opposed to breaking the ABM treaty, which would be necessary if a star wars system were to be deployed.

    Faced with that threat which, to use President Reagan’s words, could make a first strike by the United States more likely, it is not surprising that the Soviet Government have made it clear that they will not sit on their hands. If SDI proceeds, they will increase the number of offensive missiles in the hope of swamping American defences, as the United Stated did by introducing multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles when the Russians first began deploying ballistic missile defences in the late 1960s, and, as Secretary Schlesinger, in a powerful. article attacking SDI, pointed out, as any Western Government would do in similar circumstances. Indeed, the Chevaline programme, which was introduced by the Conservative Government in the early 1970s, was introduced as a response to the Soviet deployment of an ABM system around Moscow.

    That is not the only Soviet response. The Soviet Government will also seek to develop weapons which would either put the American space-based system out of action—the most likely weapon for that would be some sort of space bomb which would circle the world permanently—or make the system ineffective, for example by introducing fast burn into their intercontinental missiles so that the boost phase, which is the first target of the American system, would be reduced from five minutes to 50 seconds, and would take place entirely in the atmosphere, which it is much more difficult for the ​ proposed American laser weapons to penetrate. Finally, the Russians have made it clear that they would plan to develop their own space-based defensive systems.

    Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

    I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. But he has not mentioned the time scale for the development of the SDI by the Americans.

    Mr. Healey

    From discussions with General Abrahamson and others I understand that the Americans hope to start deploying some sort of ballistic missile defence within about 10 years, although the first system may be based on land rather than in space. The fact that the Americans are known to be researching into such systems makes it sensible for the Russians to start preparing against them now, just as western countries, faced with the possibility of Soviet systems, immediately started taking action either to swamp them or copy them.

    Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) rose—

    Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North) rose—

    Mr. Healey

    I shall give way from time to time, but I do not wish to conduct a seminar. I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, will note the anxiety of hon. Members to speak.

    American official sources have made it clear that in the next 10 years, if the arms race proceeds, the Soviet Union will be able to increase the number of its missiles much faster than the United States simply by keeping existing production lines open. Indeed, it could increase the number of its warheads from about 9,000 to 30,000 within 10 years, especially if the United States abandons the SALT II agreement, which would restrict the number of missiles, as the American Defence Department has asked the President to do.

    Even that is not the full horror of the prospect before us. The United States has now admitted that it is examining the possibility of putting nuclear weapons into orbit to use as pumps for X-ray lasers. It has already carried out many tests for that purpose on its testing grounds in Nevada. It is already exploring nuclear weapons as an element in its SDI, although earlier it always said that the SDI would be an entirely conventional system.

    We must never lose sight of the fact that the technologies that are now under examination could be used for offensive as well as defensive purposes. In response to papers produced by several American university teams, a spokesman for the American strategic defence initiative has already admitted that any laser weapon powerful enough to destroy a missile in the atmosphere could, with some redesigning, be used to incinerate a city. Even the non-nuclear lasers contemplated by the United States could produce climatic effects as horrific and catastrophic to humanity as the nuclear winter—a concept with which people are now becoming familiar.

    Faced with that terrifying prospect, any European Government should be using all their efforts to stop the arms race from entering that new phase while there is still time. Despite the publicly expressed hostility of the French Government to the SDI, and despite the deep and public divisions in the German Government about the SDI, the ​ British Prime Minister decided to jump the gun on all her European allies and not only to endorse the programme but to offer to put British scientists at its disposal.

    The Prime Minister sought to justify that sell-out by two arguments. First, she told us that the President gave her satisfactory undertakings at their meeting in December 1984 on the deployment of a space-based system. The second argument was that it was impossible to monitor an agreement to ban research into such a system. However, it is already clear that the American Administration have not the slightest intention of honouring three out of the four undertakings that they gave to the Prime Minister in Washington 14 months ago.

    The first condition was that America would seek not to achieve superiority but to maintain the balance of strategic forces. On 1 February 1984, Secretary Weinberger told Congress:

    “If we get a system … which we know can render their weapons impotent, we would be back in a situation we were in, for example, when we were the only nation with the nuclear weapon.”

    He considered SDI as effectively giving the United States the monopoly that it had in 1945. That is not maintaining a balance in strategic forces.

    Secondly, the President undertook that the deployment of a system related to the SDI— in view of the obligations that America accepted under the ABM treaty —would have to be a matter for negotiation with the Soviet Government as a fellow signatory of the ABM treaty, and with America’s allies. President Reagan was clear about the matter. On 6 November last year, in answer to questions, he said that if Russia did not agree to amend the ABM treaty to permit the deployment of a space-based defence system, he would go ahead and deploy it anyway. When asked by journalists whether he would permit the Soviet Government a veto on deployment, he said, “Hell, no.”

    Mr. Weinberger made the same point in less colourful language. A year ago he stated:

    “I am ruling out the possibility of giving up on strategic defence, either in the research stage or if it becomes feasible in the deployment stage.”

    He refused to give up the possibility of deploying SDI under any circumstances if it proved feasible.

    As the House will recall, it was that refusal even to consider negotiations that blocked all progress at the recent Geneva summit on disarmament of strategic nuclear forces. That in turn makes nonsense of the fourth undertaking, that East-West negotiations should aim to achieve security with reduced levels of offensive systems on both sides.

    Both sides are now planning to increase greatly the number of their offensive systems and to increase new types of defensive weapons. There is no chance of progress on strategic nuclear disarmament unless the United States is prepared to negotiate about the abandonment of the strategic defence initiative. The tragedy is that that has become clear just at the time when the new Soviet proposals for disarmament—perhaps engendered to some extent by the fear of the SDI deployment—represent major concessions in the Soviet position, not least on intermediate nuclear forces, where the Soviets have accepted the zero option, which was first put to the Russians by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and myself when we met Mr. Brezhnev in 1981. It was also put forward by President Reagan on behalf of NATO in discussions with ​ the Soviet Union about a year later. Since the war there has never been a time when the prospects for progress on disarmament have been more propitious. There is now a real chance of doing that to which the American and Soviet Governments committed themselves when Mr. Shultz and Mr. Gromyko agreed a year ago to end the arms race on earth and to prevent an arms race in space.

    The Prime Minister’s excuse for supporting the SDI as a research programme is that it is impossible to monitor or verify a ban on research and that the Soviet Union is carrying out research into ballistic missile defence in any case.

    As I pointed out when we previously debated this subject during the debate on the Queen’s Speech in November, although research carried on inside people’s heads or inside laboratories is impossible to monitor without access to those laboratories, such research cannot go far without physical tests, or “demonstrations” as the Americans call them. Tests of components in a possible system that take place outside laboratories can be monitored by satellite photography and other means and are continuously monitored by the American and Soviet Governments at present. The Russians have at last offered to draw a distinction between research in laboratories and brains and the type of tests outside laboratories that can be monitored, without which such research cannot proceed very far.

    The Americans have listed such tests as having been carried out by the Russians. They have described some of the preparations that they say the Russians are making to produce a ballistic missile defence. However, I understand that their interpretation of the Krasnoyarsk radar—their prime exhibit—is not shared by the British Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will come clean on that matter in his reply. Evidence given to the Defence Committee by some officials made it clear that we do not endorse the American interpretation of Krasnoyarsk. The Russians have agreed to dismantle the Krasnoyarsk system if Britain dismantles similar systems at Fylingdales and Thule. Many people believe that they are as contrary to the ABM system as is the Krasnoyarsk radar.

    Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

    The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for many years for Fylingdales. Was it part of an ABM system?

    Mr. Healey

    No, it was not then, but the right hon. Gentleman and his Government agreed to develop Fylingdales as a phased array radar of a type very similar to that at Krasnoyarsk. That is a new development which the Russians have already claimed is contrary to the ABM treaty, on exactly the same grounds as the Americans claim that Krasnoyarsk is contrary to the treaty. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute that fact.

    Mr. Heseltine

    Perhaps I would if the right hon. Gentleman gave me the chance. I was deeply involved in the matter. The purpose of the modernised Fylingdales is no different from the purpose over which the right hon. Gentleman presided.

    Mr. Healey

    That is precisely what the Russians argue about Krasnoyarsk: that its purpose is to track objects in space, not to—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would love to conduct a seminar because I know that education and instruction is widely required by Conservative Members.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) rose—

    ​Mr. Healey

    No, I have dealt with the question of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—

    Mr. Heseltine

    The right hon. Gentleman is getting carried away. The essential difference is that Fylingdales existed before the ABM treaty and Krasnoyarsk did not.

    Mr. Healey

    Of course Fylingdales existed before the treaty, but it is being developed in a way that is incompatible with the treaty. That is precisely the complaint made by the Soviet Government. If the right hon. Gentleman is sensitive about his complicity in the matter, and if he believes, like the Americans, that the Krasnoyarsk radar violates the treaty, let the British Government agree to the Soviet proposal to cease development at Fylingdales, Krasnoyarsk and Thule, which seem to be a perfectly sensible proposal that would not harm Western security and would relieve many people of what I believe to be legitimate anxieties.

    If the West is really worried about Soviet research into ballistic missile defence or anti-satellite systems, where in some respects the Soviet Union is further advanced than the United States, it could kill those systems stone dead by accepting a ban on observable tests. None of the Government’s excuses for supporting such tests hold the slightest amount of water, since they are fully capable of being monitored.

    The strategic defence initiative has become the major obstacle to stopping the arms race. It is widely agreed that it would be possible with existing means to monitor a comprehensive test ban, especially since the Soviet Government have agreed to on-site inspection. But the SDI requires nuclear tests underground of X-ray laser bombs, some of which have already been carried out in Nevada. Mr. Miller, a top scientist at Livermore, has argued in public that even the non-nuclear components of the proposed SDI require testing in a nuclear environment which can be produced only by the explosion of nuclear weapons.

    The tragedy is that this opportunity to stop the arms race may be the last unless we can pop this genie back in the bottle now. What must worry many hon. Members is that the major obstacle to a reduction in strategic weapons is the American attachment to the SDI, just as the major obstacle to accepting the Soviet proposal for the zero option on intermediate nuclear forces is the British Government’s determination to go ahead with the Trident programme, although there is growing opposition even in the services to continuing that programme, since, as the right hon. Member for Henley will recall, one reason why our forces cannot afford helicopters produced by Westland is that, in a few years’ time, 30 per cent. of the new equipment budget will be taken up by Trident.

    Her Majesty’s Government and the American Government together have erected a massive road block on the way to peace. All this has been compounded during the past few months by the grubby conspiracy of the British Government to encourage British scientists to leave vital British programmes of civilian research, such as the Alvey programme, and work instead on SDI research for the American Government. It is yet another sell-out to American pressure— one of vital importance to the future of British industry.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will deal at greater length with some problems surrounding the agreement made by the Secretary of State ​ for Defence, which General Abrahamson was pursuing during his recent visit to London. I hope that he will tell us a little more about the agreement, since I understand that he met General Abrahamson yesterday.

    The memorandum of understanding that the Government signed with America on this matter is scarcely worth the paper on which it is written, because such memoranda can be overridden at any time by the American Congress, as Congress overrode the wartime agreement to share nuclear technology when it passed the McMahon Act, and as the Americans overrode another agreement when they cancelled the Skybolt project on which an earlier Conservative Government were relying to replace the aging V bombers. As the right hon. Member for Henley may remember, a few years ago, the Americans unilaterally broke the memorandum of understanding to produce an airfield attack weapon, the JP233. Indeed, it may have been before his time. That memorandum was signed by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) whom he has joined on the Government Back Benches. They seem to be a depository for former Defence Ministers.

    But even if the memorandum of understanding is not overridden by the United States, it is vital that the House should know what its provisions are. We know only one thing about the memorandum: that the former Secretary of State completely failed in his stated objective to guarantee $1,500 million-worth of work for Britain. We must rely entirely on leaks, most of which are coming from the United States. However, some have come from the familiar source—the Department of Trade and Industry —which let it be known during the negotiation of the agreement that it was unhappy about the right hon. Gentleman’s failure to obtain satisfactory assurances on intellectual property rights and on technology transfer.

    Connoisseurs of British politics will be intrigued by the fact that there was what psychologists call role-reversal on that occasion. The right hon. Member for Henley was trying to sell out to the Americans, and his comrade in adversity, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was trying to protect European technology. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that circumstances alter cases, although I found his posing as a great European odd when I considered his record on the memorandum of understanding on the SDI and his position on the purchase of the Trident missile.

    We have been told by leaks that the Department of Trade and Industry was immensely unhappy about the provision to enable British scientists to use the knowledge which they acquire in this research and to produce products which can be transferred to other countries in commercial sale.

    No information is available to the House about the provisions. There are no military security grounds for denying the House this information, and there is every reason for its having the information. Is it the case, as one of the American leaks has claimed, that intellectual property rights and technology transfer will have to be settled case by case in company-to-company contracts, and therefore the British Government have acquired no guarantees whatever in this field which will protect British interests?

    The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany have said in advance— they have not yet signed the ​ memorandum of understanding—that they will not cough up any of their own money. One of the leaks I have read says that Her Majesty’s Government have agreed to provide one third of the money for any Government-to-Government contracts from the British Treasury. That is a matter of immense importance to the House. Hon. Members have every reason to be told the truth, yet we are denied it.

    We are also told that there are penal cancellation clauses in this agreement in an attempt to bind any future Government to implement its provisions. I am certain that any future House of Commons will demand the same right as the American Congress has often exercised, to override a memorandum of understanding about which it has been given no information whatever.

    The central issue on this agreement is a general and simple one. We all know that Britain has a substantial lead over the United States in some of the new technologies, particularly those relating to fifth and sixth generation computers which, it is hoped, will have artificial intelligence and be capable of learning. It is essential—I hope the right hon. Member for Henley agrees, in the light of his recent speeches—that we should use this unique advantage in high technology to build a European base so that Europe can compete on equal terms in these areas with the United States and Japan.

    We should not sell out to the United States, and particularly to American defence interests from which there will be only a small commercial spin-off, even if we are allowed under the agreement to make use of the spin-off. I noticed the other day that the assistant head of research at IBM, who can be regarded as a fairly independent authority on these matters, says that the right word is not “spin-off’, but “drip-off.” The amount of commercial advantage which even the Americans will get out of this diversion of research and development from civilian to military research will be small compared to the colossal resources which it is planned to invest in it.

    In an earlier debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that to make these points is not to be anti-American; it is anti-British not to make them. It is time that this Government got off their hind legs and started putting Britain first. The Prime Minister and the Government as a whole have shown a feckless indifference to British interests. That has characterised the whole of their industrial policy, which we have been debating at length in recent weeks, and it threatens the very survival of the manufacturing side of our economy. Feckless indifference to the interests of peace by supporting the SDI is even more dangerous.

    I ask the House to vote for the motion. At least it is one means of stopping the sell-out to American pressure which is corrupting every area of our public life, both at home and abroad.

  • 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.