I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment,

Leave out '"level 4"' and insert '"level 5"'

"People do not like this offence, and want to try to stamp it out, but we must get the penalty fixed at the right level. My hon. Friend"—

"suggests that it should be fixed at £400. In the trade that is a level 3 fine, and I think that it is probably about right".—[Official Report, 12 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 635.]

What does a level 3 fine mean?

I accept that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not a lawyer. [Interruption.]

Did the hon. Gentleman hear his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) say that if I was a lawyer I would make a fortune?

Knowing the cantankerous nature of the hon. Member for Bolsover and the way in which he is always ready to support a good fight, I have no doubt that if he were a lawyer he would make a fortune.

Is there anything above that?

There is nothing above that that we could properly debate today.

"Our working paper proposed that the maximum penalty currently available in magistrates' courts should apply in this case, that is six months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000"—

"or both. Only one commentator disagreed with our provisional proposal and suggested that three months' imprisonment might be more appropriate on the grounds that six months appeared excessive in comparison with the maximum penalty for making obscene telephone calls which is at present limited to a maximum fine of £400 (level 3), without the possibility of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed.

"We must first explain why we favour giving magistrates' courts the power to imprison a person convicted of sending a poison-pen letter. In the working paper we gave two reasons: first, we could conceive of circumstances in very serious cases in which a sentence of imprisonment might be the only suitable form of punishment; secondly, the availability of a number of different types of sentence in magistrates' courts depends upon the existence of the power to imprison in relation to the particular offence of which the defendant has been convicted."

The last time that we debated this subject, it was rightly said that imprisonment was not appropriate. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) acknowledged that, as imprisonment is not attached to conviction in cases arising under the Bill, magistrates do not have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983, but there are many other routes by which they can advise that a convicted person should receive help and treatment.

The hon.Gentleman makes a fair point. He canvassed this matter in earlier debates on the subject, and I accept what he says. However, I can envisage occasions when the letter is so malicious and the effect on its recipient so dramatic that courts may decide, even in the absence of any medical condition, that a short period of imprisonment is appropriate.

A few moments ago the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said that the courts should be able to send people to prison for repeated offences or for offences that suggest that they need treatment for a mental condition,. In those circumstances, why is the hon. Gentleman restricting the scope of his amendment to a fine of only £2,000? Why has he not followed the logic of his argument and ensured that, if necessary, the courts should be able to send someone to prison or for mental health treatment?

That is a fair question, but since I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, I have learnt that in this place one takes what one can get and that if one seeks to obtain an amendment that is strictly in line with one's views one may alienate a large number of hon. Members. My amendment is a compromise. It does not go as far as I should like, but it goes further than that provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. It also goes further than those in another place wanted it to go. However, it is a step in the right direction.

"Accordingly, we recommend that the maximum penalty for the new offence should be six months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,000 … or both."

I did not take part in the previous proceedings, and I am therefore a little confused about what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has said. Why has it taken so long to arrive at this position? Can he explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) set a lower level of penalty during the early stages while at this fairly late stage my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is suggesting a penalty that is in line with the Law Commission's recommendation? That is odd.

That is not strictly correct. The Bill was debated in Committee of the whole House and I urged my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood to move further up the scale than level 3. In reply, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) said:

"The sending of a malicious communication certainly causes distress to the recipient, but we must not make the penalty out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and out of proportion to other offences already on the statute book. The penalty at level 3 is the same as that for broadly similar offences under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and Public Order Act 1986."

It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are isolated, because the other place appears to support my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I am sure that he will receive a great deal of support from hon. Members. I detect that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is attracted by his argument. The Minister of State's judgment is usually impeccable, but it can go astray occasionally. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood are equating this offence with other offences, but my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North begs to differ. He thinks that the offence is different: in its nature, quality and quantity. Is that the right interpretation of my hon. Friend's argument?

I agree with my hon. Friend's last statement, because my hon. Friend the Minister of State went on to say:

"We must be consistent and keep the penalties for similar offences in line."—[Official Report, 22 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 1155.]

What is the hon. Gentleman dragging him in for?

I am dragging him in to absolve him of any blame, because in Committee it was the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon who put forward these arguments.

Where is he?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here today. As he is a very reasonable man, I hope that he will accept some of my points and that the Government will agree that we should move up the scale.

Is there not an argument that higher penalties should apply to similar offences, such as malicious telephone calls, that can be deeply disturbing to those who receive them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not accept the argument that, as the law provides for lower penalties for other offences, we should go along with them. If I understand him rightly, he is saying that we should consider increasing the penalties for other offences. If that is his point, I wholeheartedly agree with him.

I, too, was not involved in the earlier stages of the Bill, but am I right in assuming that a letter or other article that conveys a message includes a tape-recorded message, in which case the offence, as the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) said, could be very deeply offensive and would justify a heavier punishment?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, but he has correctly analysed the Bill. It includes tape recordings. It also includes obscene messages put on floppy disks. Such messages would not be read until they were inserted in the computer. The scope of the Bill is fairly wide-ranging and would include obscene messages sent in that way.

I get what can loosely be described as obscene pen letters from Tiny Rowland. He sends them to me on behalf of Lonrho plc to encourage me to send them on to Harrods. I think that he sends them to other Members of Parliament. Would such letters be described as poison pen letters? They are sent by Tiny Rowland to Members of Parliament with a view to causing anxiety and distress at Harrods.

Order. We are discussing a narrow point, not the Bill in general.

We have to reach a decision about the different levels of penalty. We are not messing around with £400. We are discussing levels 3 and 4, and we could reach level 5. I have to consider the poison pen letters that are sent from Tiny Rowland via me to Harrods. Is that point covered by the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)? I want to know—

Order. This is supposed to be an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address the House, perhaps he will try to catch my eye later, but interventions must be brief.

I am after the lawyer's advice first. I want to know whether the letter from the Attorney-General that caused anxiety and distress to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) during the Westland affair could be—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough—perhaps too far.

I have certainly got him worried.

The hon. Gentleman has got me worried.

It could be a worrying day.

I am quite prepared to give the hon. Gentleman advice outside the Chamber, hut of course he will have to pay the usual fee.

The usual exorbitant fee.

Indeed—on level 5.

If a Member of Parliament sends an offensive letter to a constituent will he be covered by parliamentary privilege, or will he be subject to the provisions of the Bill?

The Bill provides that when a letter is sent in the normal course of business that constitutes a defence. I suppose that a Member of Parliament could argue that if his letter was in the proper terms, he had not committed an offence. In my opinion, the defence would not be absolute. I can envisage circumstances in which a Member of Parliament could fall foul of the law.

I am sorry to distress my hon. Friend, but the offence applies only to dunning letters, and I am not sure how often Members of Parliament send dunning letters to their constituents.

I suppose that if a Member of Parliament was also a lawyer who was owed some money, and he wrote on his House of Commons headed paper, that might be covered, but I agree that that is an arguable point.

It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend chose a stockbroker as an example, because, generally, he would be involved in perfectly legitimate and honourable business practices. He would be careful how he writes to people, because his very business depends on good relations with his clients and the public. Will my hon. Friend comment on someone in a powerful position, such as the leader of a trade union, who may well write a letter to one of his members threatening that, if that person does not conform to certain practices, such as an unofficial strike—

Briefly, please.

—he may be sent a letter saying that he will lose his job. How does my hon. Friend react to that? What level of punishment does he consider appropriate in that case?

Order. If hon. Members wish to make speeches, I wish that they would do it in the usual way—by seeking to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair rather than by making long interventions.

I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I am mounting an attack on stockbrokers. I was merely giving an example of a case in which the courts might want to impose a far heavier fine than £400. As to the case that my hon. Friend mentioned, it would all depend on the wording of the letter and whether there was an unwarranted threat, which is what the Bill requires. It also requires that the information is false and that the sender knows or believes it to be false. The purpose of the communication should be to cause personal distress or anxiety. I can envisage a case of a trade union official exceeding his authority, being particularly offensive and causing distress, and that being covered by the Bill.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such a letter would he written by a general secretary or another officer within the rules of the union, or at the instruction of the union's executive council? The letter would not be written in the context in which we have conducted this debate. The hon. Gentleman may take the view that it is unlikely that the Bill would cover such a letter. There may be other ways in which to deal with it.

I agree that such a case is unlikely. I believe that most trade union leaders and officials try to conform to the law. In the normal course of their business, if they sent a letter that is robust but no more, the Bill would not be relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke about a letter which was so offensive and over the top that it would probably be in breach of union rules, but of course there are rogue trade union officials, just as there are rogue stockbrokers. The point of my example, however, was simply to draw attention to the adequacy or otherwise of the proposed level of fine.

There have already been lengthy discussions in this House and in another place about the penalty proposed in my Bill. Concern has been expressed about whether the penalty is sufficiently high to punish adequately or deter those who send malicious communications. In Committee in the House, I resisted an amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to increase the fine to level 5 on the standard scale to a maximum of £2,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North has now tabled his amendment again. I still believe that a maximum fine of £2,000 is too high.

Like other hon. Members, I was not privileged to take part in earlier stages of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am very interested in what is happening and what might happen when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. I very much welcome the Bill and applaud the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) for introducing it.

All hon. Members will recognise the description that my hon. Friend has given of what we will loosely describe as "neighbour" problems. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Birmingham has established a pilot conciliation scheme with help from one of the universities to try to resolve the problems before they cause people to send abusive or poison-pen letters. Other local authorities might want to consider that scheme in due course.

I am very grateful for that interesting point and I hope that we will consider it.

When Tiny Rowland writes to me, he is not sending me a malicious communication that would cause me anxiety and distress. I never read the letters thoroughly, but it seems to me that he is trying to cause anxiety and distress to the people who own Harrods, by suggesting that they do not really own it and that they got it by dodgy means. I am being used as the middle man in the exercise, and I know that other hon. Members get these letters in brown envelopes. Would that come within the general ambit of the Bill and, if so, would that alter my hon. Friend's view about the appropriate level of fine?

Order. The first consideration was long enough.

I have never had a communication from Tiny Rowland, or perhaps I have, but have thrown it away unopened. That is a slightly different scenario from the one that we are discussing.

Don't worry; I have heard it before.

Am I not right in thinking that if a fine is not paid, a person has to go to prison?

That was my other point. Has my hon. Friend considered the question of non-payment? We hear constantly that the prisons are full and that the number of prisoners is at an all-time record. The Prime Minister was elected on the basis of law and order, but the prisons are so full that prisoners are breaking out. The Prime Minister 'was going to set the people free, but the prisoners got out. If fines were set at level 5—£2,000—more people might be unable to pay. If they fell into contempt of court, they would be pushed into gaol and add to the numbers in prison. That is why I am still considering whether to support the original provision or the amendment. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. In my case, the jury is still out.

I have never been asked to help my hon. Friend before, because he always knows his own mind. It is a novel experience for me. He has made a serious point.

Surely, the point is something of a red herring. If a defendant cannot meet a fine due to a change in circumstances, there is provision for the courts to review the weekly payment, and they invariably do so. Only if the defendant makes it quite clear to the court that he is not prepared to pay the fine or if his behavour is so perverse that he is putting other things—such as his own entertainment—before the payment of the fine, is he sent to prison. Prison is not really a threat to a person who makes a reasonable effort to discharge the fine imposed by the court.

The hon. Gentleman does not live in the kind of world that I live in. I am not talking about stockbrokers or the well off. It is stupid and wrong to write a poison pen letter and to be caught and fined. However, the guilty person might be a pensioner or be receiving income support. He might be paying back other debts, such as bills for gas and electricity. Such people find it difficult to pay fines, with the best will in the world, and they end up in prison.

The hon. Lady mentioned Holloway. It is important to emphasise that Holloway is not overcrowded.

It is true that I have not been to Holloway for a year or 14 months. When I spoke of it as being overcrowded, I did not mean that there were six persons to a cell. However, the constant complaint at Holloway, which often comes from the Prison Officers Association, is that there are too few prison officers to deal with the number of prisoners and there is a distinct feeling that many of the women who are there for non-payment of fines or similar offences should not be there at all. That point is linked to my argument. I mentioned Holloway because it is a London prison and I know something about it. There are other prisons which are overcrowded and, even if Holloway is not technically overcrowded at the moment, it could become overcrowded.

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. The prison statistics for England and Wales for 1986 show that fine defaulters accounted for 22 per cent. of receptions under sentence, and that was 1 per cent. more than in the previous year. About 1·3 million men were fined in 1986—I do not have the figure for women.

My hon. Friend has reinforced my argument. I am worried about the level of fines that could be imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that he was waiting for the jury. I have made up my mind that £400 is the right amount. For that reason, I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Sherwood support the Lords amendment, because it sets fines too high. We should keep to the level of fines proposed by the Bill, at least for the time being, and see how that works. If the fines do not do the job that they are intended to do, it would be possible to increase them at a later stage.

When I say that my jury is still out, it is because I am considering tactics. We have three choices: £400, £1,000, as proposed in the other place, and £2,000, as proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). There are only two Lobbies in the House, the Aye Lobby and the No Lobby. I think that my hon. Friend is bordering on accepting the lower level of fine, just as I am. We may, however, finish up throwing out the baby with the bath water and having an even more censorious fine. We must consider not just our reasons for wanting the lower level but which way to vote to get the lowest possible level on offer.

I do not know, although presumably I should, the fines imposed at levels 1 and 2.

Level 1 is a fine of £50 and level 2 is a fine of £100.

Those fines are too low. On the whole, £400 is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has made a good point—we do not have three Lobbies. We shall probably end up deciding between a fine of £400, as originally in the Bill, and a fine of £1,000, unless the hon. Member for Derby, North pushes his amendment for a fine of £2,000. I have come to the conclusion—or talked or read myself to the conclusion—that the best idea is to stick to the £400 and see how we go. The measure is an innovation—one which we should all welcome and on which we should congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood. We should not go over the top but should stick to the £400.

As my hon. Friend has said, the level of fine has ebbed and flowed. When I am making up my mind, I have to consider which decision will least benefit the lawyers. I always do that whenever a vote is to be taken, especially when lawyers are involved. They have different levels as well. I want to know before I walk through the Lobby whether my decision will enable the lawyers to get a big fat bonus. Their level in this matter has not yet been disclosed. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will explain. The hon. Gentleman may well be able to argue that the legal payments are not a consideration, but that point must weigh in my mind. I do not want to vote for a measure and then, a few years later, have someone say to me, "You walked through the Lobby, Skinner"—

Order. It is difficult to see how this point arises under the narrow amendment before the House.

You are bound to say that, Sir, because you have a different job. You will not have to go through the Lobby. You will sit in the Chair and no one from Doncaster will come to see you in two or three years' time and ask, "What did you do, Harold, on the day in question when the House lined the pockets of the lawyers?" You will be able to dodge the column. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and I will have to listen to all the complaints at our surgeries. Before we decide, I want to know whether this measure will fill the pockets of the lawyers, because there are many in this place.

I take my hon. Friend's point. I am not a lawyer and I am always dropping dangers in terms of what lawyers think should be done. Should we not also consider the need to keep the fine low? I do not know where we stand on, for example, legal aid. A poor person who is up for prosecution and who goes to a lawyer will want legal aid. Will he be entitled to it?

Will the hon. Lady consider the point that the levels which we are discussing are maxima and judges will have the discretion to award fines up to those levels? Therefore, the hon. Lady's point about income levels, which I understand, could be catered for. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agree that we want to ensure that effective fines can be applied to the wealthy while allowing the use of discretion to take account of people on lower incomes. If we follow the hon. Lady's recommendation, we may lose out on penalising the wealthy.

The hon. Gentleman was momentarily out of the Chamber when I talked about the maximum.

The hon. Gentleman referred to "maxima".

It is Latin for the plural of maximum.

If there is a maximum, magistrates and judges have to decide what to impose. Sometimes they go for the jugular and impose the heaviest sentence. I am concerned about having a fine of £1,000 or £2,000 because it may result in poor people being penalised. I acknowledge that they should not have committed these acts. It is dreadful for anyone to send a poison pen letter, but we must take the circumstances into account. Magistrates and judges may be so annoyed and incensed by the offence that they go for the maximum penalty. I should like a more modest sentence, at least at the beginning. That would be the best way to proceed before we go down this new road.

I am attracted by the idea of the availability of higher fines because they would be a deterrent. We are aiming for deterrents, rather than punishments, to stop the offence. The availability of higher fines would provide greater flexibility for magistrates in coping with the varying degrees of gravity of the offence. It would provide some headroom for inflation which, I am afraid, is still too high. Sometimes I wonder why we do not include in our legislation some power for the Secretaries of State to vary fines according to inflation. The availability of higher fines would be beneficial in dealing with persistent offenders. When these cases come before the courts, we shall find that there is a high number of such offenders.

I receive hate mail.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) receives hate mail.

In relation to hate mail, I was trying to explain that Tiny Rowland has been hoping to use me as a vehicle to express certain views in the House. He is attacking the owners of Harrods because he thinks that they managed to purchase Harrods by some dodgy methods. He has been sending hate mail—it has not caused me anxiety and distress—deliberately to try to cause anxiety and distress for his enemies among the other Tories who were running Harrods. It was really an argument between Tories. That is the top and bottom of it. Would mail causing a third person anxiety and distress be described as hate mail? It has not caused me any worry at all.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My understanding was that Tiny Rowland was a supporter of the SDP, rather than a Tory. I, too, have received mail from Tiny Rowland.

The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting for a minute that the SDP, which is now regarded as the provisional army led by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), is anything other than a front for the Tory party which, as many people say to me, will eventually—

Order. I do not see how this can possibly arise under this amendment.

The hon. Gentleman's point is probably dealt with by the libel laws. I have received such mail. I did not understand it and, to be quite frank, I thought that it was from somebody who was a little deranged. Many hon. Members present will have received hate mail. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) also receives hate mail. It is a fact of public life. The right hon. Member for Islwyn is a nice chap, after all. He is a Welshman, so he must be a nice chap. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) also received a large amount of hate mail from old retired colonels. We in public life should not be too sensitive to such matters. They should be weighed up and judged in the courts.

Order. What has this to do with the level of penalties, which is what we are considering?

I shall refer to that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) spoke realistically about the Bill and the proposal on the level of penalties. I do not think that the Bill is about wealthy people. I do not say that the wealthy will not commit such crimes. I do not know many wealthy people, so I am not acquainted with their foibles. In general, I am prepared to believe that wealthy people are as likely as, or even more likely than, my associates and constituents to commit any crime. But in practice, wealthy people will not face such charges. If they do, they are unlikely to have to pay a fine, whether it be £400 or £2,000, because they employ their wealth in ways that make it much less likely that they will be found guilty. I support the £400 penalty not because I wish to be soft on wealthy people but because wealthy people are not likely to be fined.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and it is clear that she wants the lowest possible level of fine. Her comments suggest that she is leaning towards an even lower level than £400. She is really saying that she does not want a serious fine at all. As she has spoken in that vein, would it not have been better to put down an amendment specifying an even lower level? I think that that is what is really running through my hon. Friend's mind.

My hon. Friend is wrong. Had my thoughts been in that direction, I should not have hesitated to put down an amendment. There should be some flexibility. A simple £50 fine, for example, would not be a sufficient mark of disapproval. We must fix a penalty which shows that we seriously disapprove of the offence. For most people, £400 is still a substantial sum. If it were generally known that such offences could draw penalties of that amount, most people would regard that as a mark of serious disapproval and discouragement. My hon. Friend is therefore wrong, although I am glad that he has been listening carefully to my remarks. I wondered why he was so silent. Clearly, he was thinking hard about what I was saying.

I was listening hard because my hon. Friend seemed to have failed to appreciate the attitude of rich people—those with the brass, such as Tiny Rowland whose letters have been causing anxiety and distress to people at Harrods. Let us consider the matter from the other end. Those rich people can afford to employ the best lawyers in the land, or at least the most expensive ones —I do not know whether they are any better, as to me they are all pretty much in the same bag.

There are good ones and bad ones.

Rich offenders might impress the magistrates by employing a lawyer called Sir Humphrey Jackson-hyphen-Smith or, to get down to brass tacks, someone called Napley—who costs £400 per hour—and the chances are that they would get away with it. My hon. Friend seems not to appreciate that £400 is chickenfeed for such people. They can take it off the ribs of the next batch of employees at their factory or wherever in a couple of minutes.

With all due respect, my hon. Friend makes my point for me. Whatever the fine is, those people will not pay it because they can afford to spend a lot of money on their defence and will thus not be found guilty. For such people, the level of fine is irrelevant because they will employ expensive defence lawyers to avoid having a conviction on their record or reported in the newspapers. Whether the fine was £400, £1,000 or £2,000, they would take all possible steps not to be found guilty, whether or not they were actually guilty. As they would not be called on to pay the fine, it would not matter to them if it was £2,000, but it would matter a great deal to the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. If a magistrate fails to apply the logic that we expect, a fine of that magnitude could be a disaster.

I support the good, common-sense points made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I, too, believe that in this instance justice should be tempered with mercy. The levels of fine originally laid down in the Bill probably make more sense than allowing magistrates to whack on very heavy fines on the ground that it is the rich we want to catch. It is unfortunate how often the nasty, envious side of human nature comes out when we discuss such matters, not least in some of the rather malicious remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who constantly pillories a gentleman in the City who cannot come to the House to defend himself but has to put up with such maliciousness and cannot take the hon. Gentleman to court for it.

I assure the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that my right hon. Friend meant no threat. I can think of no occasion on which he has behaved in other than a gentlemanly fashion. The fact of the matter is that he disagreed profoundly with the hon. Lady's comment.

In my understanding of what was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, from my reading of the Hansard report of last Friday's proceedings, he tore into me strongly and used what I consider to be false information in his allegations about me. However, we know that anything said in this Chamber is protected by privilege, and that is why the hon. Member for Bolsover gets away with saying so many unpleasant things about a certain gentleman in the City who cannot be here to defend himself.

Whatever I say in the House, I am prepared to repeat outside it. Unlike some hon. Members, I do not make use of the privilege that is there for hon. Members to use. The letter I received from Tiny Rowland attacking Harrods has been printed in The Observer, because I believe that he just about owns that newspaper as well. The hon. Lady should not get upset about that. The letters that Tiny Rowland is sending out, causing anxiety and distress to Harrods, are being printed in newspapers week after week.

On a point of information, if the hon. Member for Bolsover wishes to enter into a debate about Wimbledon, perhaps we may have a private discussion about the level of the ticket mark-up. However, I shall not touch on that subject now, because Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order. He brings me to order, quite rightly, fairly often, when I ramble off the point. I hope that he will adopt the same attitude to the hon. Member for Bolsover, who frequently rambles off the point.

Does my hon. Friend agree on reflection that she has destroyed her own case? She stated that a fine of £400 is sufficient, and she gave as an illustration a letter sent by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). However, because that right hon. Gentleman—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—moonlights by writing columns for glossy magazines, he is a very wealthy man and a fine of £400 would be nothing to him.

I take my hon. Friend's point but I do not wish to be malicious towards the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook; he has his point of view and I have mine.

Order. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the amendment. The hon. Lady should return to the subject of penalty levels.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your remarks.

I can see how the question of those adjacent dogs could be a matter of grave concern, especially as my hon. Friend's husband might be thinking of writing again in similar terms. In the context of fine levels, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the statutory defence existing in subsection (2), which I feel sure her husband will wish to adopt if he is subsequently prosecuted for writing the kind of letter that is apparently commonplace for him to write.

I thank my hon. Friend for his learned and wise intervention and good advice. I may say that all that happened some years ago and that we subsequently moved. Nevertheless, it is a good idea to put before the House concrete examples of the circumstances in which our laws are meant to operate, so that we do not legislate in a vacuum. I support absolutely the points made by the hon. Member for Barking, whose common sense and practical experience of life so often contribute useful points to our debates.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on the safe return of his Bill from the other place. I share his apprehension as the minutes tick by, and I do not intend to detain the House too long.

"Ten years ago, they were invariably women—often, I am sorry to say, some poor woman going through the menopause in a village somewhere."

May I put two points to the hon. Gentleman? First, should we not be careful not to place too much reliance on so-called statistical evidence? Because the law currently makes no provision for poison pen letters, any such evidence must relate only to reported cases. We do not know, for example, how many letters have been sent whose recipients have been caused anxiety and distress but have not reported the matter.

I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Because there has not been a specific offence before, the evidence that we have brought to our debates has had to be anecdotal and largely taken from our advice bureaux. I also take the point that the level at which the fine is set will be the maximum, and that there is no minimum. I shall come to that in a minute.

"All anonymous letter writers have two things in common: the first being that they are all cowards; the second that they are would-be manipulators of other people's behaviour."

The House in general welcomes the Bill. I wish to extend to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) the congratulations of the House on having introduced the Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) for having provoked an unexpectedly spirited and interesting debate.

The Minister is convincing me. He has made an excellent point in raising the question of racial violence via malicious letters. We could all point to examples of that. He also mentioned things other than letters going through the letter box. Would lighted objects coming through the letter box be covered by the offence of arson, or would they be considered malicious communication?

The hon. Lady has in mind bits of paper, petrol, or rags which have been set alight and which cause fires. Those are covered by the ordinary laws which deal with arson or malicious damage. We are dealing exclusively with mail and other objects which are sent with the purposes set out in the Bill. For those purposes, the word "sent" is apt to include putting something through a letter box, and not necessarily posting it through the mail. The Bill deals exclusively with objects posted through the letter box with the intention set out in the Bill.

I am in an odd position, because I, too, wish to thank the Minister for raising a matter which had not occurred to me—the possibility of such actions being part of a campaign, perhaps for racial reasons. I had not taken that into account. Clearly, with the broader knowledge to which the Minister has access, he is destroying part of the case that we made.

That is unusually gracious of the hon. Lady. She has put me into some difficulty, as I was going to refer to her speech and I had it in mind to make some very unflattering comments about her. However, she has been so gracious that I will have to redesign my speech; otherwise, I shall be profoundly embarrassed.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend can clarify a matter for the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) may have misled the House unwittingly when he said that he favoured a higher penalty, as he considered it an inflation-proofing measure. Will the Minister confirm that provisions already exist whereby the Government can increase fines by statutory instrument to take account of inflation?

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North is entirely correct. I was going to deal with that when referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). The fine attached to any scale can be raised by statutory instrument. That is how the Government can deal with the serious problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South identified.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman has not participated in the debate; nonetheless, I am feeling charitable.

I have listened carefully to much of the debate; I do not know whether the Minister regards that as participating. Perhaps I should have made a lengthy intervention, and perhaps later this morning I shall take the opportunity to do so.

Order. The hon. Gentleman would not have been allowed to make a lengthy intervention, and I hope that he will not do so now.

By pure chance, this morning I received a letter from a constituent who has received unsolicited through his letter box something called, "Just Truth", which is, "A nationalist review of policy affecting British People", price lop. It was the winter 1987 edition, so clearly it did not sell very well as it was shoved unsolicited through the letter boxes in my constituency. It includes references to the holocaust of 6 million Jews being an error of fact, it refers to the ethnic composition of police recruitment and training, and contains various other disparaging remarks. Would such an item be caught under the provisions of the Malicious Communications Bill? If so, what action would arise from that?

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that he has been in the Chamber for most of the debate. Although the hon. Gentleman is eminently forgettable, wearing what he does today, he is also eminently visible. In fact, he has not been in the Chamber for the greater part of the debate. The debate has been going on for nearly two hours and the hon. Gentleman's presence has been extremely limited. Were it otherwise, we should have spotted him because he is dressed in such an obvious way.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect to the Chair, and to the Minister—with great respect to one, and less to the other—I have been here for the majority of the debate so far. I should like to place that on record and graciously to accept the Minister's comments regarding my attire.

The hon. Gentleman is making the point I have already made, which is that he is eminently forgettable. I do not think that we can carry the matter much further. It is for the House to judge whether he has been present; I am confident that he has not.

What I had in mind was repeated offences. Can the Minister tell whether repeated offences, if they are seriously malicious or with racial undertones, such as those mentioned, can be taken further, perhaps under other legislation, to ensure that they are duly dealt with?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point and I can give him only an off-the-cuff reply. There are other statutes that touch on such conduct. Criminal libel could be invoked in some circumstances. Moreover, some statutes dealing with race relations might be appropriate and some of the communications might fall foul of the Public Order Act 1986. That is an off-the-cuff reply, and I do not guarantee that it is correct. However, I am certain that other legislation could in some circumstances be applied to such offences.

I want to refer to my point about Holloway being understaffed. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to let me make this point. Theoretically, Holloway is probably not understaffed, but my information from people at Holloway has always been that because Holloway contains so many remand prisoners, there are always many prison officers out of the prison taking people to hospital or court and that the staff remaining in the prison find themselves overstretched. Every governor I have ever seen at Holloway has said that more staff would be helpful for the atmosphere in the prison.

I will be careful not to go too far down this road, because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order. The hon. Lady will appreciate that we are implementing Fresh Start throughout the country and it is in place in Holloway. In my opinion, Holloway is properly staffed and we are attempting to make the most efficient use of staffing. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady's point on Holloway, but I am glad to say that I am able to agree that the ability to pay fines should be a factor of which the courts should take account when determining the level of fine to be imposed.

"a demand which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making; and that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand."

I should not like my hon. Friend to think that my husband put that letter through next door's letterbox. He was driven to the point of sitting down one evening and composing the letter. I thought that it would be of interest to bring it to my hon. Friend's attention so that he could understand the provocation to which some people are subject.

I understand that point, but if her husband had it in mind not to put it through next door's letterbox but to fold it into a dart and throw it over the wall it would still be "sending" according to the provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend's husband had better be careful. If not, there are many hon. and learned Members who will look after his interests, should it prove necessary.

The consensus that earlier settled on the House has been shaken, but I hope not shattered, by the lively debate that we have had.

It will be difficult for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to throw knives at his leader because he has departed for far-away parts and will be away for some time.

Order. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said that he wanted to reply to some of the points that have been made. I hope that he will stick to that.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.

In view of the points that have been made about sustained campaigns, whether they be connected with racial matters or not, I have changed my mind. I had been considering the Bill only in the context of individuals. I should not like people to start invoking conspiracy laws, as I disapprove of them. It is better to provide for a heavier penalty than I had first thought suitable.

In case some hon. Members have doubts about the wisdom of increasing fines, I refer them to a case that took place in 1982 against a man called Penketh. He heard a widow broadcast for a pen pal. He wrote to the widow and out of kindness she replied to him. He began to bombard her with letters but she decided that she did not want to hear from him further. He wrote to that lady's son's headmaster saying that he was the natural father of her child, which caused her much distress. He was arrested and charged with criminal libel. He was placed on probation but continued to contact and pester her. When the matter was reviewed on appeal he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. The courts may need in certain cases, so that the sentence is a proper deterrent, to impose a fairly heavy fine or imprisonment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston for acknowledging that there are cases in which a £400 fine would be inadequate.