Ken Hind

In this period working with Simon Brogan Entertainments Secretary, later to manage Jethro Tull and Pete Hart, as stage manager to later to run Genesis Leeds University promoted concerts for The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Elton John, Eric Clapton, Leonard Cohen, John Mayall & the Blues Breakers, Black Sabbath, Ginger Baker and many others. In 1971 The Who recorded the live album, ‘’the Who live at Leeds’’ which became the best selling album in the world in 1972.[2] The DJ Andy Kershaw has subsequently stated, "Leeds University managed to get The Who to perform simply because the students who were running the gigs there at the time, Simon Brogan and Ken Hind (who later became a Tory MP), had a reputation for doing a highly professional job. Most student unions were amateur. Leeds was different."[3] Kershaw continued, "It's extraordinary. The weekend before The Who it was Led Zeppelin and 13 months after the Live at Leeds gig - on 13 March 1971 - it was the Rolling Stones. Mick Jagger loved the place. "Everybody wants to play here," he said at the time of the 1971 gig. The refectory was - and still is - a student dining area, but as well as its practical uses it has an extraordinary atmosphere. The stage is set in a bay window, there's a low ceiling and a balcony that runs around to the corners of the stage. Jagger called it "The Smartie tube." Reminiscing on a return visit to the refectory 35 years later in 2004 Hind stated "The great thing about [the original] concert was that this launched Leeds on the map. It became a must for every band." Simon Brogan stated "It was fantastic. The first gig made me a Who fan. This one was probably even better because I'm older so I can appreciate it more."[4]

In a debate in the House of Commons on the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill which was about the licensing of so-called Acid House Parties which took place on 9 March 1990 Hind stated, "I am probably one of the few hon. Members who has experience of promoting entertainment. In a past incarnation I was the chairman of the entertainments committee at Leeds university union, when I had the privilege of promoting some of the biggest names in entertainment, who came and gave concerts at the university. One of my best memories is of handing a cheque to Elton John for £250 for a night's work--a sum that would fill him with horror if he were given it today.

We used to organise concerts for 2,000 people in two halls, with bands playing simultaneously. Artists such as Led Zeppelin, Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones and Free played at the university. Those of us who are 40 or more and who attended these concerts as undergraduates know the problems involved in them, but we are not trying to prevent young people from enjoying what we enjoyed."[5]

During his time as Union President Hind represented the students on the University Council and Senate. As a journalist he worked for the Wakefield Express.

R V Donna Cannon Winchester Crown Court 1993 brothel owner acquitted of perverting the course of justice but convicted of blackmail. Main prosecution witness prosecution fail to disclose is a drug dealer on witness protection programme. Paul Foot of Private Eye championed case which went to Court of Appeal.[6]

This was a case involving a former escort agency manageress, Donna Cannon. Cannon was charged with blackmailing one of the agency's clients, James Lawson. Lawson and a friend had sex with an agency girl who told him he did not need to pay the agency fee of £30. Cannon, he said, threatened to accuse him of rape unless he handed over the money. Cannon said that Lawson had sex on different occasions with two girls from the agency who complained to the police. She said she wanted to stop Lawson making any further approaches to the agency and that was why she threatened Lawson with a rape allegation.

The prosecutions case rested on Lawson's credibility. He agreed with Cannon's defence barrister, Hind that he had several previous convictions, including dishonesty, forgery and actual bodily harm. Lawson accused the defence counsel, Hind, of trying to blacken his character and repeatedly insisted that he had not been in any trouble for 12 years. The jury at the trial found Cannon guilty of blackmail and sentenced her to 150 hours community service.

What made the trial memorable was that Lawson admitted in evidence that his real name was Peter McNeil but refused to answer any questions about his change of name. It emerged after the trial that he had appeared in the witness box at the Old Bailey as a Police Informer giving evidence for the prosecution against 3 Mafia drug smugglers who were members of a gang of which he was part to gain immunity from prosecution. McNeill who had played a big role in the drug smuggling got off without charge in return for giving evidence.

The key question is whether the jury in the Cannon trial would have thought differently of Lawson's evidence if they had known of his involvement in the previous trial? Would his involvement with the police as an informer have painted him in a different light at the trial.

Hind certainly thought so asking why the defence did not know about Lawson's defence role in the witness box?

The explanation offered was an "ex parte" application made by the Crown Prosecution Service to the judge before the trial asking and getting permission not to disclose certain information.

The case for non-disclosure was based on public interest. It was argued by Hind yjat the public interest should not be an excuse for non-disclosing vital information in a criminal case in which the defendants liberty is at stake.

R V Anthony Ian Jackson Preston Crown Court 2005 Drug Supply by proprietor of All Night Club Monroes Acquitted in 8 minutes by Jury of all charges following a 40-day trial.A nightclub owner accused of allowing drugs to be supplied on his premises has denied he knew what was going on. Anthony Ian Jackson said there was no truth whatsoever in any suggestions that he turned a blind eye to any dealing at Monroes in Great Harwood.[7] Memorably Hind, defending, asked [Jackson at the trial]: "Did you ever, between September 28, 2003, and February 15, 2004, permit the supply of ecstasy tablets in the club?" The defendant replied "no". Jackson went on to explain: "There were no drugs to be allowed into the premises. It was a zero tolerance." Mr Hind also asked: "If there is any suggestion you looked the other way while dealers supplied drugs, is there any truth in that?" "None whatsoever," replied Jackson."

R v Graham Redford 2006 – Manchester Crown Court - Alleged Noonan Gang amourer , charged with murder of another gang member shot in the back of the head and body put in car which was the set on fire. A police informer who blasted a petty crook to death in a gangland-style execution was trapped by a spelling mistake. Graham Redford, 43, was certain he could escape detection after shooting Stacey Lloyd in the head before bundling his body into the boot of his own car and torching it. A police informer who blasted a petty crook to death in a gangland-style execution was trapped by a spelling mistake. Ex-soldier Graham Redford, 43, was certain he could escape detection after shooting Stacey Lloyd in the head before bundling his body into the boot of his own car and torching it in a lovers' lane. He meticulously cleaned his industrial unit where Mr Lloyd was gunned down and even had certain areas re-concreted to ensure no blood could be linked to him. Redford, who once ran a private detective agency, also posed as Mr Lloyd and used his mobile phone to send text messages to his girlfriend and another woman in a bid to convince them he was still alive. But instead of saying "I'm" in the texts Redford spelled it "Ime" and detectives investigating the murder discovered that was the way Redford - unlike the victim - always spelled it. Redford was jailed for life and told he must serve at least 30 years - less the time he has spent in custody - before he can be considered for release.[8]

R V Peter Newton Multi million £ fraud on Cumbria County Council by waste disposal firm[9] The charge stated that they did this by "inflating the quantities of household waste actually collected and disposed of and including quantities which had not been collected and disposed of." Those who admitted being involved in the fraud were CAW Ltd's managing director Dave Armer, the firm's general manager Donald Andrew Kershaw, and yard worker Peter Newton. They were all employees of CAW Ltd of Barrow-in-Furness, which ran seven Cumbria county council civic amenity sites. The firm had originally been paid a set fee for processing the waste. But in 2002 the council introduced a new scheme, in which the firm was paid according to how much waste it handled. This allowed the three to oversee a scam in which the amount of waste processed was exaggerated, with false paperwork being drawn up to back up the bogus figures, so they could claim more money than they should have. In many cases records showed that lorries had contained much more waste than they really had; loads were given "multiple tickets" (making it look as if several lorries had arrived, not just one) and in some cases records were submitted for loads that hadn't existed at all. Transport Manager Peter Newton was jailed for six months.

R V John Varey 2009 Teesside Crown Court charges with 4 others with aggravated burglary, wearing stocking masks and armed. A defence witness who saw attackers leaving the premises was killed in a car accident before the trial- Judge allowed her emergency telephone call to the police in which she made from a passing bus describing what happened to be played to the jury. This evidence of a witness speaking after death, resulted in the acquittal of all 5 defendants. 

R V Saima Mahmood Preston Crown Court 2011. Honour Poisoning and by family of daughter who left home to live with another man, defendant acquitted. The Case featured in BBC programme on honour cases.[10][11] A mother kidnapped and drugged her own daughter in an honour crime. When the victim ran away from the family home in Bradford and moved to Newcastle, she instead married the man of her choice. And despite the newly-wed's attempts to reconcile with the family, Akhtar put pressure on them to divorce along with Mrs Afsar's brother Shamrez Khan, 32, and brother-in-law Zahid Mahmood, 34. In January 2010 the family travelled to Newcastle to visit Mrs Afsar and she was persuaded to visit her sister's home in Accrington. Whilst staying at the address on Empress Street, Akhtar, Shamrez Khan and Zahid Mahmood returned to the Newcastle address, took all her belongings and threatened her husband. When the trio returned to Accrington they drugged Mrs Afsar with a sedative hidden in a milky drink and bundled her into a car intending to take her back to the family home in Bradford. But the victim and her family were intercepted by police at Rising Bridge after her husband raised the alarm. Shamim Akthar, clashed with her daughter Naila Afsar when she pressured her to marry her cousin. When the victim ran away from the family home in Bradford and moved to Newcastle, she instead married the man of her choice. And despite the newly-wed's attempts to reconcile with the family, Akhtar put pressure on them to divorce along with Mrs Afsar's brother Shamrez Khan, and brother-in-law Zahid Mahmood, 34. Shamrez Khan and Zahid Mahmood who pleaded guilty to the charges part way through the trial. Following their own acquittal Mrs Afsar's father Mohammed Khan, 57, and sister Saima Mahmood, 29, condemned their family members for their actions. Speaking after walking free from court Mr Khan said: "I strongly condemn my family members for any wrong doing and they should be punished for what they have done. "I also want to say that I'm against any sort of force used against your daughters to get them married against their will." After leaving court Mrs Mahmood said her family had been divided by the case but she hoped to reconcile with her sister. Speaking on her behalf barrister Ken Hind said Mrs Mahmood was ‘deeply relieved’ but distressed that her family members are in custody facing jail. He said: "As she said in the witness box, Mrs Mahmood has always supported the idea of the rights of the individual for who they marry and how they marry. "She believes that everybody in this country should have the right to choose who they marry. She stands by this view."

R V Evans 2011 Preston Crown Court- Armed robbery of security Van driver shot – discovered by dye on stolen currency notes. The money had been sprayed with a purple dye, mixed with a unique DNA marker when members of his gang robbed and shot a Loomis security guard weeks earlier. This is the trial of the gang had been involved in robberies of security guards making deliveries to cash machines. The first was outside Morrisons supermarket in Thornton, Lancashire, in August 2008, where they got away with £50,000. The second was at a cash machine in Preston New Road, Blackburn, where a security guard was shot, in December 2008. A gang which included Evans watched two security guards prepare to re-fill a cash machine in Preston Old Road, Blackburn. Hiding their faces behind balaclavas, they pounced running at the guard, Imran Aslam, and demanded he hand over cash. He did. Then he was shot in the leg because they were demanding he opened the door to the estate agents to get more cash. Police stated he couldn't do that. As a result of their frustration they shot him. The attack had triggered the dye and DNA to leak into the cash box covering £20,000 in notes. Some of the stolen notes were discovered by alert staff at a Shell petrol station in Accrington who noticed they had started to get stained notes. The notes were sent to Applied DNA Sciences, the company which provides the DNA and dye to Loomis. Laboratory testing proved the notes had been in the cash box taken in the armed robbery. Two boys, aged 10 and 12, found a loaded firearm while they were playing in a wooded area near Ewood Park in Blackburn. David Evans along with other gang members was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and possessing a firearm and jailed for 10 years.[12]

R V Swaley Wilsher 2011- Lincoln Crown Court Armed Robbery of isolated farm – telephone evidence helped to clear the defendant – acquitted - Crimewatch Most Wanted Case- BBC

R V Emma Mitchell- Preston Crown Court 2013.- Case went to Court of appeal as one of jurors was a Facebook friend of people involved in the case. Court of Appeal call for investigation.A hen party guest who bludgeoned a mother with a bottle after berating her for having an interracial relationship Fashion shop supervisor Emma Mitchell, 30, assaulted Chantelle Phillips Miss Phillips, who had a daughter with an Asian man, suffered serious cuts and had to have 13 stitches. The victim suffered a one-and-a-half-inch wound over her left eye, which needed two internal stitches and nine external stitches, a smaller cut to her head which needed two stitches and extensive swelling and bruising around her left eye. The prosecutor said Miss Phillips had been left scarred and was at a loss to understand why she was attacked as she felt certain she had done nothing wrong. Mitchell denied wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. In mitigation defence counsel Hind said Mitchell had suffered from post-natal depression after having each of her children and had taken anti-depressants. The hen party was her first night out since the birth of her third child. He claimed Mitchell had suffered years of abuse at the hands of her then partner of eight years and had been a 'cowed little woman' in the past. Mr Hind said Mitchell's children might have to go into care if she was sent to prison as she was their sole carer. He continued: 'She tells me she no longer goes out. She is looking after her children. She has changed her life. She has got rid of her partner." Mitchell was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm at Preston Crown Court and jailed for four and a half years. Judges ordered a probe into the trial amidst claims she had 22 mutual Facebook friends with a member of the jury. The case was controversial because it raised question marks over the impartiality of trial by jury amidst increased social media use. Mitchell argued a series of small town links to the juror means she did not receive a fair trial. The inquiry which was thought to be the first of its kind in the country was ordered by judges at the High Court.Appeal Court. Judges took the rare step of ordering an investigation by independent watchdog, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), into what the juror had known about Mitchell at the time of her trial.

Mitchell's barrister, Hind, said evidence had surfaced that the juror had written about her court duty on Facebook and had ‘liked’ a comment by a friend, which stated: "If it was me I would send them all down." The trial judge had refused to discharge the juror after she admitted knowing the landlady of the Farthings pub, in Blackburn, where Mitchell first confronted the victim of her attack, he added. It later emerged that the landlady had managed another pub where Mitchell had committed previous criminal damage and violent disorder offences, the court in London heard. Hind said that, as well as the Facebook connection, it had also come out that the juror's daughter saw Mitchell arrested for the wounding offence and was friends with a member of Mitchell's family. Witness statements claimed the juror had previously drunk at the same pub and once lived near Mitchell. "Blackburn is not the smallest town, but it is not the biggest," Hind added. "There was a very real danger the juror could have been biased."Usually jurors cannot be questioned on why they reached a verdict or what took place in their deliberations during a trial. The appeal judge, sitting with Lord Justice Pitchford and Judge Francis Gilbert QC, directed the CCRC to quiz the juror on what she knew about Mitchell and to establish if there was any risk of bias. The judge added: "In the circumstances we have decided to adjourn the appeal and we also believe that it is appropriate in this case that the matter be referred to the CCRC in order that they should be able to carry out an investigation."[13]

R V Simmon Grayson 2014 -. Preston Crown Court rape of former girlfriend 2 trials, jury in first trial could not agree. Simmon Grayson had claimed that what took place between him and the victim had been consensual but today he starts his sentence after being found guilty of rape and sexual assault. Hind his barrister told Preston Crown Court that Grayson had committed no sexual offences in the past. And it was the first time he had ever been sent to prison. Grayson was given eight years for the rape, two years prison for the sexual assault and another 12 months on top for an offence of intimidation. [14]

R V Mary Kidson 2014 Worcester Crown Court -defendant accused poisoning her child by allegedly administering illegally obtained prescriptive drugs to her daughter who was removed from her care by social services. Defendant was acquitted by direction of Judge at end of prosecution. Lancashire Barrister Hind and Blackburn Solicitors Simon Farnsworth, Deborah Morgan of  FMB  took on the case of Mary Kidson a local woman from Nelson, who had moved to live in Herefordshire and secured her acquittal in a landmark case that could have long term  impacts on suffers from thyroid and cortisol hormone deficiencies throughout the NHS.

Mary Kidson's daughter suffered with a number of physical problems, primarily she was constantly fatigued, had low blood pressure, lack of energy, pain in muscles and joints plus other problems. She was seen by 5 endocrine paediatric consultants in the NHS – 4 of whom discharged her saying there was nothing wrong with her as it was all in the mind. Mary did not believe this, she researched on the internet, read books on hormone deficiency and accessed the web sites of Thyroid UK and the Thyroid Patients Advocacy Forum. She was convinced her daughter had deficiencies in cortisol, thyroid and oestrogen.

Taking advantage of section 13 in the Medicines Act 1968 she ordered hormones from  accredited pharmacies on the internet. She consulted Dr Durrant Peatfield an unregistered physician who had been criticised by the GMC for his views expressed in his book on the Thyroid Gland who approved her treatments. She was still concerned to have a registered physician directing her daughter's treatment and was recommended to Dr Thierry Hertoghe, the President of the  International Hormone Society with 3000 physician members worldwide. Dr Hertoghe has written 7 books including the Hormone Manual, one of the leading text books for physicians practising abroad in this field. Hind said Thierry Hertoghe was highly respected, had written a number of books and addressed international conferences.[15]

Mary took her daughter to Brussels where Dr Hertoghe carried out tests on 40 hormones and minerals, far more than carried out by the NHS and diagnosed chronic fatigue syndrome caused by hormone deficiencies. He prescribed hormones and nutrients and treated her for 5 months.

On 5 March 2013 without having spoken to Mary, social workers and police officers turned up at her home & arrested her, took her daughter into interim care where she was placed with foster carers whom she did not know her for 2 months. Doctors examined Mary's daughter who they said had nothing wrong with her, made no contact with Dr Hertoghe to ask about diagnosis and treatments, despite the fact he wrote to the police, doctors in the case and social services 3 times. NHS doctors ended all the hormone treatments.

Mary's daughter was interviewed on videotape by the police and said she felt better as a consequence of the treatments.

9 months later in January 2014, the police charged Mary Kidson with poisoning her daughter unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm or endangering her life. Mary was only able to see her daughter for 2 hours a fortnight and that was under the supervision of a social worker until April 2014. In breach of her bail conditions  Mary was phoning and texting her daughter in response to requests for help and reassurance. Mary was remanded in custody to prison for 6 months for a breach of this  bail condition, her daughter was certified under the Mental Health Act and sent to a psychiatric hospital where she remains.

The case came to Worcester Crown Court for trial for 3 weeks. Deborah Morgan who prepared the case for trial commented "One of our first requirements was to speak to Mary‘s 16 year old daughter as the prosecution declined to call her but Hereford Social Services blocked it  at every turn. Eventually a psychiatrist appointed by the defence was allowed into the hospital to speak to her, he found she was fit to give evidence and wanted to do so on behalf of her mother as she was within 2 weeks of being discharged by her psychiatrist. I turned up at the hospital to see her and was told I could not do so because Herefordshire Social Services blocked it. Eventually I was allowed in after application to the trial Judge which Herefordshire Social Services fiercely resisted in court."

Hind stated ‘’Mary Kidson’s defence was that as a loving  caring mother who had struggled for years with her daughter’s ill health she only wanted to see her get well, develop normally and have a happy, fulfilled adult life. After 11 days in court, evidence from 5 consultants, 2 social workers, a forensic scientist and police officers, the Judge directed the jury to acquit Mary Kidson as there was no evidence of grievous bodily harm (accepted by the prosecution) and that the alleged victim’s  life had not been endangered."

Hind, said Mrs Kidson's daughter suffered with a number of health problems including fatigue, muscle pain and low blood pressure. He said that the 'landmark ruling' could now have a long-term impact on sufferers of thyroid and cortisol hormone deficiencies seeking treatment who felt they were struggling to get the right treatment from their doctors.

Hind said: "We were initially approached by her family to take this case and we undertook it as this was the kind of case which we came into this profession to deal with and protect the man and woman in the street where we see the state has got things wrong." "Her defence was that as a loving caring mother who had struggled for years with her daughter’s ill health she only wanted to see her get well, develop normally and have a happy, fulfilled adult life."[16]

At the centre of the case was the treatment of NHS doctors for thyroid hormone deficiency. Dr Hertoghe from Brussels who gave evidence described the NHS as 40 years behind in this area of treatment. He commented that the NHS only treats patients when they are 70% hormone deficient, where he and his colleagues treat when the patient is 25-30% deficient.

Judge Robert Juckes QC told the jury there was no evidence that grievous bodily harm had been caused or that there was a risk to the girl's life.

During the conduct of the case Hind's Team discovered that this is not an isolated tragedy which are mainly dealt with in Family Courts where anxious parents have been threatened with removal of their children into care.[17]

Mary Kidson said questions need to be asked about the 'monopoly' the NHS has on child medical care.

Sue Hind, practice manager at Ms Kidson's defence team Newtom Chambers, called it a "David and Goliath" case. She said: "It was a privilege to be part of Mary Kidson’s tiny defence team in the face of Hereford police and social services. Mary showed great dignity and stoicism throughout the trial but was passionate about the world understanding she wanted only the best for her daughter. It was a bit like David fighting Goliath so thank goodness sense prevailed."[18]

Hind said [Ms Kidson] had been left "shell-shocked" by her time in custody and was "coming to terms with normality".[19]

R V Rebecca Tootle; 2014 -Preston Crown Court charged with murder issue was the right of a defendant attacked at her own home to use force. Acquitted of murder convicted of manslaughter. Ashley Meadowcroft was 18 when stabbed to death by Rebecca Tootle who was addicted to the synthetic drug, Happy Hooker. Tootle said the drugs made her calmer. But when Mr Meadowcroft turned up at her house with a "dangerous" dog, demanding to speak to her boyfriend, she plunged a knife into his chest. He suffered a fatal knife wound to his lung and died in hospital 45 minutes later despite efforts to save him. Her barrister, Hind, told Preston Crown Court: "While she has been in custody, she has addressed a lot of problems. She has been free from these legal highs —members of the public do not seem to appreciate how much damage it does to them."[20]

Tootle, 20, told police Mr Meadowcroft had brought the knife to her house and even scratched her arm before they arrived to make her story more viable. But despite making legal history by being the first defendant to argue under the new defence of 'disproportionate force' she was found guilty of manslaughter at Preston Crown Court. Police were called to Tootle's house in Blackburn, Lancashire, on 4 September last 2014. She claimed she had 'loads of trouble' with the teenager and told police he had stalked her, robbed her and tried to rape her. As officers arrested Mr Meadowcroft she told them: 'He's a f***ing d***, he's stabbed me so I took the knife off him and stabbed him self-defence. 'He could have killed me. He could have definitely killed my fiancé. He broke into my address. I didn't do it on purpose.'

In a 999 call after the stabbing she told operators that Mr Meadowcroft had a dangerous dog and could be heard screaming: 'Help me, help me, I've been stabbed.' Mr Reid said: 'When police got there she showed a small mark on one of her arms and was saying: "I had to take the knife off him because he's mental". 'But Mr Meadowcroft never had a knife, he did not try to stab the defendant and he caused her no injury to her arm. 'The defendant was lying about all these matters within a short time of her having plunged the knife into Mr Meadowcroft's chest.' He added that Tootle consciously armed herself with the knife before she went to answer the door. She discarded the weapon in her garden after the attack. He said: 'The idea that a few marks on her would justify her in killing someone who had come into her house was not something that had just occurred to her that night.' Police described Tootle as a 'violent individual' who had previously dialled 999 on a number of occasions to falsely claim someone was in her house with a knife. Detective Inspector Andy Cribbin, from Lancashire Police, said: 'Tootle took it upon herself to attack Ashley and then fabricate an account portraying herself as the victim. 'She armed herself with a knife, attacked him and then set about trying to justify what she did and never took any responsibility for her actions.' Prior to the attack she falsely claimed Ashley had a knife and immediately afterwards she said that she had disarmed him and then used the knife to inflict a minor injury upon herself in an attempt to defend her actions.

Judge Tim Holroyde told Tootle she was 'sly and manipulative' and posed a 'danger' to the public. He said: 'Having observed you throughout the trial there can in my judgement be no doubt whatsoever that you are dangerous. By your act, although you did not intend it, you ended a young life.'

The trial was the first in Britain where the defence of 'disproportionate force' was put forward under an amendment the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The new law means that if somebody is acting in an 'extreme circumstance' such as a burglary, they can use 'necessary' force to stop the offender.

Tootle, 20, of Fecitt Brow, was found guilty of manslaughter and was sentenced to nine years in prison, which will be followed by a further five years on licence "to protect the public".[21]

R V Abid Khan 2015-16 – Manchester Crown Court - Rochdale Grooming Case charged along with a number of other men with sexual assault and rape upon vulnerable girls under the age of 16. Abid Khan, 38, of Liverpool, was found guilty of sexual activity with a child. The principal complainant in the case, who was raped by six of the men, walked into a police station in 2012 claiming to know about the "Rochdale grooming case", following widespread media coverage of the convictions of a number of Asian men for grooming white girls for sex. The victim reported that when she was aged 14 and 15 she was herself repeatedly sexually groomed by a large number of men from the Rochdale area. The victim – described by prosecutors as an "extremely vulnerable young woman" who had had a difficult home life – said that her phone number had been passed around and that "hundreds" of men would ring her wanting to meet for sex. The 10 men were charged as part of Operation Doublet, a police investigation into the alleged sexual exploitation of teenage girls by men in Rochdale.[22]

Hind made his maiden speech in parliament on 4 November 1983. In his maiden speech Hind stated, "I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this most important debate.

Lancashire, West was created out of three former constituencies—Crosby, Ince and the old constituency of Ormskirk. I pay tribute to my predecessors for their hard work and their diligence in representing the people whom I now represent.

I am proud to be here, and those Conservatives who come from Ormskirk and its surrounding villages take the view that for a number of years the area was merely loaned to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) while the largely Labour-voting constituents of Kirby sustained him and overcame the great support in Ormskirk for the Conservative party.

West Lancashire is a microcosm of the country and highlights some of the problems of regional policy. An economy is strong if it contains a vital small business sector. Each of the three strongest economies in the Western world—West Germany, the United States and Japan— have much larger small business sectors than Britain. Therefore, we should follow their initiatives to create similar conditions.

It is all very well for the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to say that we can raise money by returning to full employment, but he failed to point out how to achieve this and how rapidly it is possible to move from our present level of unemployment to full employment. I am sure that this is the question to which each hon. Member would like an answer as soon as possible. We are dealing with the present, not the possibly idyllic conditions of the future.

The old town of Ormskirk typifies what is happening. My constituency is divided into the towns of Ormskirk and Skelmersdale, which are generations apart. Ormskirk is an old market town situated in one of the largest belts of grade A farm land and surrounded by about 30 villages. It is a relatively prosperous area with a number of good shopping centres, and unemployment is 8 per cent. In the Ormskirk region the number of small businesses is far greater than in Skelmersdale, which is 20 years old and has an unemployment rate of 31·5 per cent. — 15,000 of a population of 43,000 are unemployed. We do not have to look far for the reason. When Skelmersdale began, all the eggs were put in one basket.

In 1974, during "the white heat of technology," the party of the hon. Member for Dagenham set up factories in Skelmersdale. We have seen the demise of two of them. The first to go was Courtaulds, when the bottom fell out of the man-made fibre industry and the factory went to the wall. Then, as a result of many problems, many of them related to union trouble, the Thorn EMI manufacture of television tubes also disappeared. Those two factories and a third, Dunlop, made many people redundant and caused an increase of 5,000 in unemployment in the mid-1970s. That was long before the recession, as we know it, began to bite.

Skelmersdale desperately needs new small businesses and gradually, slowly but surely, things have begun to improve. I have heard that Skelmersdale does not enjoy the best reputation in the House but I believe that that is unjustified, because the town is settling down. More houses in Skelmersdale, built by the development corporation, have been sold than in any other authority area in the north-west. The figure is over 2,000, which represents 20 per cent. of the housing stock. Private builders are building fast. Small factories employing more people are growing gradually. Perhaps the most significant pointer to the settling down of a new town is the fact that there is a low crime level. Our major crime is teenage burglary.

Skelmersdale has motorway connections north, south, east and west. The port of Liverpool is nearby. In addition, there are two airports within forty minutes' travelling time.

I am as proud to represent the people of Skelmersdale as they are to be part of that town. I must point out to the hon. Member for Dagenham who started the movement in favour of a small business policy that between 1974 and 1979 his party was in power but it did nothing of any consequence for small businesses. It was not until the Conservatives came to power in 1979 that the country became aware of the importance of the small business sector.

I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister the problems that some new town businesses have. I echo the statements that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) about the burden of paper work on small businesses, and the fact that rates, which we seem to forget, are an overhead that reduces employment. Problems are also caused by the Employment Protection Act. I ask the Minister to study all these matters carefully to see what help can be given to small businesses.

I should like the Minister to consider particularly one aspect of the business allowance scheme. It is a successful scheme and a number of my constituents have applied to join it. They have borrowed £1,000, and they have registered for the necessary length of time, but they have found that, because their wives are in employment, they are not entitled to claim the weekly allowance permitted under the scheme. I ask the Minister to consider that matter, as we are losing initiatives and potential businesses.

I also ask the Minister to consider small businesses' planning problems. When one starts from nothing, it is easier to operate from an upstairs room or a garage. Perhaps the Minister could relax planning legislation so that, providing small businesses do not cause noise or smell, or create traffic, they can in the short term operate in dwelling houses. The people who have signed on the scheme could benefit from that. I welcome my hon. Friend's enterprise agencies scheme. I hope that there will be one in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk. I shall do everything possible, as will hon. Members in their areas, to develop the enterprise agency in my area.

I echo what was said about the banks. Perhaps we could give the clearing banks a bit of a shake-up. They are too cautious. It has been said that many of them are merely moneylenders rather than bankers. We should urge them to be more like venture organisations and to consider how they can benefit their clients and assist them to expand. It is sad that the role that they should perform, which is performed in Germany, Japan and America, is being fulfilled by the British Technology Group and the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to allow the investment function of BTG to be removed or eroded. In my area, a specialist development area with difficulties, BTG has played an important role, which has benefited the community a great deal. I hope that it continues in that role. As long as the banks fail in their duty to industry and small businesses, it will be necessary to have organisations such as BTG to fill the gap.

I ask my hon. Friend to consider the problems faced by the expanding small business in a new town. New town development corporations are tied to producing a specific return on their assets. It is difficult for the business to move from one factory to another. It is all right if the factory is owned by the development corporation, but many are being sold to the private sector, which is a sign that the town is maturing and becoming a greater part of our economy. I ask my hon. Friend to consider allowing some of those companies relief from 17 and 20-year leases so that they can move to other factories to expand. The burden should be put on the development corporations to lease those factories as best they can.

In old industrial areas, old factories can be broken down into smaller units and can provide cheap accommodation for industries that are starting up. The workshop scheme has operated in such premises. In a new town such as Skelmersdale we do not have such property; they have to be built and are expensive to rent. I ask the Minister to consider that problem. The people who are taking advantage of the business allowance scheme in the new towns cannot find the accommodation that is necessary to carry out a manufacturing function.

I hope that I speak for those hon. Members who represent the new towns when I say that I welcome the fact that, when some of the development corporations are wound up, the Commission for the New Towns will monitor and assist in small firm development in the industrial centres of those towns. We must also bear in mind the Infotech centres. We have referred to the service industries but we must not forget that the high-tech industries, be they in the service or manufacturing sphere, are also small businesses which have an important role.

It has been suggested that we should remain with the old industries. Britain cannot compete with the Third world in some forms of manufacturing process as our unit costs are too high. We must look to the new technologies. Skelmersdale will be looking towards the new technologies. The Government must assist in every possible way to develop such industries in the new towns.

The Government must be congratulated on their programme of 108 various schemes to help small businesses. Criticisms have been made that the schemes are too complicated. I advise the critics to acquire a copy of a document called "How to Make your Business Grow." The document is very simple. It tells business men whom to see and where to go for advice. Every small business man should have this document on his desk. For the hon. Member for Dagenham to say that the Government do not tell the small business man where to go for advice is wrong. This document is the answer.

Development of the small business sector must never cease. We can never say that we have done enough. Development in that sector is continuing and can be improved. I urge the Government to continue as they have begun. I hope that they will accept some of the remarks which have been made as assisting them in furthering their policy."[23]

The Speech was described by his colleague on the Conservative benches, Roger Freeman MP Roger Freeman, Baron Freeman as, "an extremely clear and interesting speech. I know that the more senior Members of the House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend and looking forward to many contributions from him in the future."

In his period in Parliament Hind was Secretary of the Society of Conservative Lawyers Committee and Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group of MPs.

One of the few occasions Hind rebelled against the Government was over sentencing policy. He believed that sentences handed down by the courts should be able to be appealed if the poosecution on behalf of the victims of crime believed they were too light. In a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in the House of Commons on 27 November 1986 Hind stated, "The question of appeals also causes me some anxiety. I fully support what has been said about the Court of Appeal's role in providing guidelines for sentencing in criminal cases. It has done that particularly well of late, as can be shown in the guidelines for sentences given for supplying drugs and rape. In such cases, two outstanding directives have been given by the Court of Appeal. But we are being asked to support a clause that will give the relative of a murdered man, or a man killed through reckless driving, the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal judges may say that in the circumstances the sentence is wholly wrong and that such and such should have happened. That would leave the relative dissatisfied. Moreover, the tabloid newspapers, in particular, might apply pressure and press for stronger provisions. Perhaps that issue should be reconsidered.

We could adopt two courses. First, we could bite the bullet about allowing the prosecution a right of appeal. We have never done that in this country, but that is effectively what we are doing. We could go the whole way, and could allow the prosecution, in cases of leniency, to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. The other option would be to leave things as they are and avoid the double jeopardy that is often given as a reason for opposing such provisions. However, we have a halfway house. That is bound to lead to pressure for the prosecution to have a right of appeal in cases of leniency. I foresee that it is something that we shall be considering within the next few years. It would not surprise me to find ourselves dealing with such a measure in the years to come."[24] Hind presaged evolution in the Government's thinking which allowed the Attorney General to Appeal unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal in the Criminal Justice Bill of 1987. In a debate in the House of Commons on Business Questions which took place in the House of Commons on 2 December 1988 he pointed out that, " the provision contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 that would entitle the Attorney-General to refer that lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal for re-examination" had not yet been invoked.[25]

In a debate on Lawlessness which took place in the House of Commons on 10 March 1989 Hind outlined his thoughts on sentencing policy and why he believed sentences for first offences were too lenient and the effect this had on the prison population, He stated, "One matter that is of grave concern to me is the issue of sentencing on which we should take a major initiative to attack the problem of lawlessness. In the past few years there has been a growth in our prison population. In 1969 it was 32,400; in 1978 it was 41,800 and today it is 50,000. If we project it forward to the year 2000, it will be 70,000, with the attendant need for more prison places and more prison officers.

A major reason for that increase is our ladder system of sentencing offenders. When a young man or a young girl appears before the juvenile court for the first time, he or she will probably be told off, given an absolute or conditional discharge and allowed to go his or her way. On returning on several occasions, such young people receive conditional discharges, supervision orders, care orders and fines. Often they will appear five, six or seven times before a court says, "Enough is enough. We must now deprive you of your liberty to stem the tide of your criminal behaviour." However, during that period we have established in the mind of the offender the idea that he or she can get away with what has been done. The offenders develop contempt for our court institutions for the police and for the institutions of law and order generally. We must face that problem sooner or later. I advise my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the way to deal with that problem is to sort out those offenders much earlier. We should not allow offenders to climb the ladder of offending in the way that they have been doing in the past. So many of our non-custodial sentences constitute a minor form of punishment and offenders believe that they are getting away with it. That can only breed contempt.

I call for an entirely different approach and I suggest that it will take about 10 years to deal with the problem. If someone is a first offender and the offence is relatively serious, that person should be deprived of his liberty immediately, but for a very short period. Many judges subscribe to my view that often a few days spent in an elderly prison, of which we have many, like Armley, Strangeways, Lincoln or Wandsworth here in London, would be sufficient to deal with the problem. Before that offender becomes used to the regime, he is released. He carries burning in his mind the memory of the unpleasantness of an old Victorian prison. I advocate that for adults who offend for the first time.

A similar approach should be taken towards younger people who offend for the first time. We could use old detention centres or youth custody for a short time. If we closed the door of the cell behind the offender for about two weeks that would burn into his mind the knowledge that he will find himself in a similar environment if he appears in court again.

The sentence should have two aspects. First, it should act as punishment, for which I have advocated the short sentence. Secondly, there should be rehabilitation and involve many of the good ideas set out in the Green Paper "Punishment Custody and the Community" produced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. The probation service, social workers and supervision should help the offender through the few months after the end of his sentence and so help him in the community.

It is most important that we stop offenders in their tracks early. If we do that, we will build respect for the police and our institutions. However, that will take a long time and it might take 10 years to roll back the contempt which has been built into our society.

As a criminal practitioner with years of experience in the law, I know that many of my clients with records have received non-custodial sentences. They have walked away from court and their parting words to me have often been, "But I got away with it." To a certain extent, we must rethink the process."[26]

So strongly did Hind feel about the issue of appealing unduly lenient sentences he believed the principle should be enshrined in law. On 31 March 1987 therefore much to the chagrin of the Government Whips Hind proposed an Amendment to the 1987 Criminal Justice Bill at Second Reading stage. He set out his reasons for introducing a New Clause to replace Clause 29, Amendment No. 60 of the Bill on the floor of the House of Commons. He stated, “The new clause seeks to impose standards of sentencing upon the courts. It is geared to the guidelines that have been provided consistently by the Court of Appeal and by directions from the Lord Chief Justice, which have been passed on to judges at sentencing conferences.

At present, anybody who receives an excessive sentence can appeal to the Court of Appeal to have his sentence reduced so that it conforms with the guidelines. The same opportunity is not afforded to victims of crime when the accused is given a manifestly lenient sentence. Neither the prosecution nor the victim can draw the attention of the Court of Appeal to that lenient sentence and ask for it to be increased. That was made abundantly clear in the Ealing vicarage rape case. The attention of the public was drawn to the leniency of the sentence that was passed on one of the accused. The guidelines were clearly not adhered to in that case, but there was no remedy.

The clause extends to the victims of crime the same privilege as is extended to defendants. If a judge continues to give lenient sentences, those sentences cannot be reviewed. New clause 20 deals with that problem. It stresses that the sentence must be manifestly inadequate and that it does not meet the guidelines, before there can be an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

For the first time, a more important role is provided for prosecution counsel. Having called upon a police officer to read out the antecedents, counsel will no longer be able to close his brief and say, "My part in this case is over." He will be obliged to advise the Crown prosecutor of the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence that has been passed. Some people fear that for the first time the prosecution will be involved in the passing of the sentence. It will not be involved in that process; nor will it have to say what sentence it thinks should be passed. It will make sure that the guidelines are complied with and if, in all the circumstances, the sentence is manifestly too lenient, it will have to say so."

He continued after an intervention, "The social inquiry report is a problem. If the prosecutor is not satisfied with the sentence that is passed, he can ask at the end of the case to see the social inquiry report. I stress that he can do that at the end of the case. It is the property of the court. Only convention has prevented the prosecution from having sight of the social inquiry report that is prepared for the benefit of the court.

Once the prosecutor decides that the sentence is manifestly inadequate, he will advise the Crown prosecuting solicitor, who will then submit grounds of appeal to a single judge of the Court of Appeal. If the single judge thinks that it is an appropriate case to go before the Court of Appeal, there will be a full hearing. Under new clause 20 the Court of Appeal would have the power to increase the sentence on the accused if, in all the circumstances, it was seen to be manifestly inadequate.

In a courtroom there are a number of factors that we must consider. The state is there not only to represent the interests of justice and to prosecute the case, but to make sure that justice is seen to be done. In those circumstances, it is important to allay much of the dissatisfaction of the general public by ensuring that sentences are seen to be fair and balanced and that both sides of the courtroom—the defence and prosecution, the state's representatives and the victim's representatives—have the same treatment and equality. In that way we will develop consistency in sentencing and we will ensure that justice is seen to be done on a consistent basis."

After another intervention he continued yet further, "One of the reasons why I introduced the new clause is that I believe that weaknesses exist in clause 29 as it stands. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Ministers in the Home Office, for accepting that there is a need to review lenient sentences. My advice to them in the circumstances is that clause 29 does not go far enough. It could be strengthened by the adoption of new clause 20.

I have certain reservations about clause 29. It involves the Attorney-General in a political role that he has not had before. This will mean that should a sentence be highlighted in the tabloid press, hon. Members will receive hundreds of letters asking them to urge the Attorney-General to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. That is an entirely new role for the Attorney-General, and that is a road down which we do not want to travel. It will ultimately lead to questions in the House about specific cases at Question Time when the Attorney-General answers questions. I respectfully suggest that that is the wrong way for us to proceed.

My next point is more fundamental. If an accused person receives a manifestly inadequate sentence, that will leave the victims and, in the case of murder, the deceased's relatives, with a feeling of deep dissatisfaction. They would then press for the case to be taken to the Court of Appeal, and they will hear the Lord Chief Justice of England say that he is very sorry that the sentence passed on the accused was totally inadequate, but there is nothing that he can do about it. That will bring the law into disrepute. It will rattle some of the faith that the public have in the law. I can see that it will result in TV crews on the steps of the courts in the Strand with the victims in tears saying, "How can they do this to me? This is a massive injustice." Clearly, the result will be that the tabloid press will take the matter up and it will become the talk of the day.

Pressure will be placed on the House to achieve the result that new clause 20 sets out to achieve. If that is the position that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends are seeking they can achieve it in the way that I have just described, or they can achieve it by adopting new clause 20.

I have proposed new clause 20. If the Government do not accept it, I am prepared to put up with clause 29 in the short term. I am sure that many of my colleagues know that in a short time we shall be back here to put on to the statute book a clause similar to new clause 20."[27]

Anonymity for rape complainants and defendants was introduced in 1975 but in 1988, at the behest of a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher, anonymity for defendants was withdrawn. This remains the case today.

When the question of defendant anonymity in rape cases was raised in the House of Commons in 1988 there was concern that if a man accused of rape could be afforded anonymity then what would be the argument against providing anonymity to defendants of other crimes such as murder or theft. If this wider anonymity was introduced, it would offend the old principle of open justice, which ensures the integrity of the justice system by allowing public access to the judicial process. In turn, public scrutiny of the process would be diminished, leading public confidence in it to become dented.

Hind followed the government view and took an orthodox line. In a debate in the House of Commons on Right of Anonymity to All Victims of and Defendants in Sexual Offences Cases New Clause 64 of the 1988 Sexual Offences Bill which took place on 28 June 1988 Hind atated, "I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who has defended and prosecuted people charged with rape. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about the openness of justice. It is an important point that we must consider. Once we start to protect the identity of some accused people, we are in danger of extending it to others. There is no sound reason why a man accused of rape should have the protection of anonymity while those who are accused of robbery, murder, manslaughter or causing death by reckless driving do not enjoy that protection. Once we open the door, we shall have opened the floodgates to a series of extensions of the rule, which would not be in the interests of open justice."

Hind continued, "Some hon. Members have suggested that the stigma of being accused of rape is carried by the defendant for the rest of his life. Of course, it is, but whatever the type of offence, the stigma is carried by people accused in every criminal case. There are more serious offences than rape."

He further continued, "I accept that rape is terrible, but I do not understand why the man accused of rape should have his identity concealed by the courts."[28]

We are now at a stage where trial by media, where press coverage fuels public opinion, often begins before the suspect has even been charged. Following the acquittal of Nigel Evans on charges of rape following a trial Hind publicly announced that he had changed his position calling for those accused of sex allegations to be granted anonymity until conviction.

Immediately following Evans arrest Hind stated, Evans, "had to suffer trial by media as his name was leaked. This is a very strong argument for the names of people under suspicion prior to charge not being made available to the press."[29]

Immediately after the trial, he stated: "No-one denies the public’s right to know but that must come after conviction, not during the trial." Hind supported Evans call for a review of laws that grant anonymity to alleged victims of sex crimes, which he said were "unbalanced", and questioned the way the CPS had handled recent cases of historic sexual allegations against high-profile people.[30]

On 5 June 1986 Hind along with a small group of MPs to the anxiety of the government whips debated through the night to prevent Sir Tam Dalyell MP using Parliamentary time to debate ‘’the character of the Prime Minister - Margaret Thatcher’’. At 9-57 on Friday morning having been in the chamber all night arranging speakers - Hind talked the previous days business through to defeat Tam Dalyell’s debate.[31] Over the course of 11 hours 20 minutes 20 Conservative MPs filibustered attempts by Tam Dalyell to start a debate.

Labour MPs were wise to what Hind and his colleagues were doing. As David Winnick, the Labour MP for Walsall North stated at the beginning of the debate on the Channel Tunnel Bill (Committal) stated, "On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is reported on the tape that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has sent a letter to a large number of his hon. Friends urging them to delay business tonight—to "filibuster", the word he has used — to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will not have an opportunity tomorrow to move the motion which stands in his name. This matter was raised earlier in the day.

I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that such a filibuster would represent a disgraceful attempt by Conservative Members to deny one of my hon. Friends, who has been successful in the Ballot, the opportunity to debate the subject of his choice. Will the Leader of the House, who is in his place, say whether this filibuster is being actively encouraged by the Government?

It is clear that the letter of which I spoke has been sent out by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West and that it contains the word "filibuster". That hon. Gentleman says in it that, should tomorrow's debate go ahead, Opposition Members would have a platform from which to attack the Prime Minister. Have we reached the stage when an hon. Member cannot debate an issue, having won a place in the Ballot, because to do so would embarrass the Government?" Peter Shore, the Labour MP for Bethnell Green and Stepney added, "On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious matter. Questions were put to the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon about whether or not what I described as a disgraceful manoeuvre was to be organised during the course of this evening and tonight in order to eliminate the debate that is to take place tomorrow. We now know from the letter, which has apparently been published and which came from the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), that Government Whips take the view that this must be a Back-Bench filibuster."[32]

Hind himself spoke in the debate, stating that, "With regard to the financing of the Channel tunnel project, it is important to emphasise that it will be built with private money and with no contributions from the state. Our deliberations on the money resolution are limited to the essentials of any Government Department overseeing this type of scheme, the purchase of land and the financing of the safety authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned financing the tunnel to ensure that it is managed, operated and maintained for a period should construction come to a halt.

My hon. Friend also raised the possibility of some form of bond. If because of heavy costs or unforeseen engineering difficulties the whole of the burden of the programme was thrust upon the taxpayer, the one thing which the invitation of funding from the private sector sought to avoid would occur. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are considering that matter and will ensure that the public interest is properly protected.

On behalf of my colleagues, I echo the Secretary of State's comments and I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy in his dealings with us throughout the night."

In 1986 Hind was appointed PPS Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister responsible for Defence Procurement, David Trefgarne, 2nd Baron Trefgarne where he monitored Labour's policy on nuclear disarmament.

Hind was a fervent advocate of nuclear defence. In a debate in the House of Commons on Defence which took place on 30 June 1986 Hind caustically argued, “The abandonment of Trident would cause a large deficit. The Labour party wishes to negotiate the American nuclear bases out of Britain. Does it not know that that would result in the loss of more than just those nuclear bases? I believe, from comments heard in Washington, that it would result in the withdrawal of 300,000 American troops from Europe, and would put a great deal of pressure upon NATO.

The Labour party's arguments are intellectually dishonest. It condemns nuclear arms and wishes to withdraw them unilaterally from the United Kingdom, but also wishes to remain in NATO under the umbrella of the American nuclear capacity. Labour Members wish to remain in the club, but do not want to pay the membership fee. The Americans will not stand for that. They will say, "This is an alliance and everyone standing within it pays their way. You cannot be a member unless you are prepared to take the good with the bad."

Hind continued, "Trident is so far advanced that it would be foolish to call it off.’ He proposed, ‘We should press ahead with a weapon that will be a deterrent and prevent attack from the Soviet Union."

He strongly advocated the principle of ‘Peace Through Strength’, arguing, "We should negotiate nuclear disarmament from a position of strength, and Trident would provide us with that strength. The most recent offer from Mr. Gorbachev has come about because we have been negotiating from strength. We should consider his offer carefully because it provides a good basis from which to negotiate sensibly a verifiable mutual nuclear disarmament — not the unilateralism that has been urged upon us, with the hope that neutralism will follow. Britain's history defies neutrality in any respect. It is foolish. We cannot become Switzerland overnight, as many Labour Members seem to believe."

Hind was unequivocal, "We are on the right lines in relation to our policy on Trident. Even if it is never used, it plays an important part in negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and will have been worth every penny spent on it to make the world a safer place.[33]

Earlier in the debate he had pointed out that, "What has brought the recent advances in negotiations on disarmament of conventional and nuclear weapons at all levels? The reason simply is that, through the defence policy pursued by Britain, the United States and NATO, we have shown our determination to defend ourselves from aggression and potential domination by the deployment of cruise missiles, by the introduction of Trident and by the maintenance of our defence commitment by increasing it by 3 per cent. every year during the past five years.."

He underlined the fact that, "We tell the Soviet Union that we shall negotiate disarmament, because that is what we want, but we shall negotiate only from strength. That is where the Labour and Liberal policies on defence break down. They can never negotiate from strength. If one does not negotiate from strength — if one has nothing to negotiate — one will achieve nothing. One will merely weaken the NATO Alliance."

Hind was the source of the damning press accounts for Labour over the argument between Jim Callaghan MP former Labour Prime Minister and John Prescott MP in the House of Commons tea room over nuclear disarmament,[34] later to be confronted by John Prescott leading to further press stories. In this period the government cancelled the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod project and purchased the American Boeing AWACS system Airborne early warning and control.

In 1987 after the general election Hind was appointed PPS to the Minister for Small Businesses John Cope John Cope, Baron Cope of Berkeley in the Department of Employment and was involved in the creation of training and enterprise councils, trade union and employment legislation and abolition of the National Dock Labour Scheme.

In a House of Commons Debate on 8 May 1989 on the Bill to Abolish the National Dock Labour Scheme in which Hind spoke he stated, "the problem of the dock labour scheme is that, unfortunately, not enough ships are seen in dock labour scheme ports,". He continued, "the dock labour scheme has clearly deterred investment because companies will not invest in ports covered by the scheme. That has deprived inner cities of investment in thousands of acres of derelict land in cities such as London, Glasgow and Liverpool, which is on the edge of my constituency." Hind further stated that, "Employment in scheme ports has contracted." He drew contrast with, "Non-scheme ports that handled little or no cargo in the 1940s, such as Felixstowe, have adapted, prospered and expanded; they show how modern, well-managed ports can use technology to secure prosperous and well-paid employment. I am afraid that that is in marked contrast to what has happened in dock labour scheme ports." For Hind the problem was the nature of contracts in scheme ports. He argued, "the contract of employment in scheme ports must be the only contract of employment known to English and Scottish law that contains a criminal sanction if the employer employs somebody who is not a registered dock worker or whatever the scheme implies. Such criminal sanctions are nonsense in this sort of society." He also raised the issue of, "the question of jobs for life." Hind argued, "Although those people can all be made redundant from their jobs, under the dock labour scheme, redundancies to reduce the work force are impossible." He also drew attention to, "ome of the abuses within the dock labour scheme—for example, ghosting and bobbing. There are examples in Garston and also in Liverpool, where three registered dock workers must be employed each day between Monday and Friday for the reception of scrap on to the quay prior to loading. Those men are ghosts. They play no part in the operation. If the ships are bigger, upwards of 16 ghosts can be employed there. They must he employed by the employers." Hind continued, "dock labour scheme ports, has been crucified by this ridiculous scheme. There was no possibility of any meaningful discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union about this scheme."[35]

In 1988 Hind became PPS to the Minister for Minister of State for Security and Finance at the Northern Ireland Office, once again John Cope and between 1989 and 1992 then PPS to Peter Brooke Peter Brooke, Baron Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement Hind was Chairman of the Joint Anglo-Irish Committee on Environment and Education and a member of the Joint Anglo- Irish Agreement Parliamentary Committee.[36]

In his auto-biography Across the Floor: A Life in Dissenting Politics the then Conservative MP Peter Temple-Morris who described Hind as "a barrister from Lancashire who believed in the direct approach and didn't tolerate fools gladly" described a speech which Hind gave in camera during a meeting of the Dublin Plenary on 3 December 1991 in the Irish Parliament which he said, "ignored the wise tradition that a PPS kept silent, particularly on matters concerning his own department." Temple-Morris revealed how Hind, "made a 'robust speech' on cross border security, in which he lectured the Irish (fatal mistake) that they were not pulling their weight on their side of the border, by making comparison to the magnificent efforts the British were making on theirs." He admitted that, "No doubt he was repeating some concern, privately expressed, within the Northern Ireland Office, and thought it needed saying." Temple-Morris concludes that, "Whether it needed saying or not, the debate from that moment, literally took off. He said, "press pencils on both sides accelerated across pages."[37] Speaker after speaker from the British and Irish delegation piled in to the debate, according to Temple-Morris, with official spokesmen on both sides coming together to try and calm things down. He thought Hind lacked awareness and "thought he had promoted a great debate."[38]

It was a view shared by Brian Barton and Patrick J. Roche in their book The Northern Ireland Question: perspectives and policies who describe Hind's attack as astonishing but place it in the context of what they conclude was the cooling of, “The open British love affair with officials in the Irish government and with [the Irish premier Dr. Garrett] Fitzgerald”.[39]

It was a view echoed by Peter Catterall, Wolfram Kaiser, Ulrike Walton-Jordan in their book Reforming the Constitution: Debates in Twentieth-Century Britain. They claim that the "Anglo-Irish Agreement did not deliver what Margaret Thatcher and the British Government hoped it would." The Intergovernmental Conference they argued gave the Irish Government a significantly enhanced role within Northern Ireland and over the British administration of direct rule. They claim that, "The extent of British disquiet can be appreciated in Ken Hind's attack on the Irish government for its failure to deliver on the security aspects of the agreement, pointing out that violence was at a much higher level in 1991 than in 1985."[40]

It was a view further elaborated by Ulrike Jordan and Wolfram Kaiser in their book Political reform in Britain, 1886-1996: themes, ideas and policies in which they pointed once again to the fact that, "The extent of British disquiet can be appreciated in Ken Hind's attack on the Irish government for its failure to deliver on the issue of cross-border security."[41]

In other words, all that Hind was doing was expressing the Northern Ireland Office view. It is surprising that Temple-Morris was not aware of such a view Hind, as PPS to the Minister for Minister of State for Security and Finance at the Northern Ireland Office had expressed the view previously in the House of Commons.

On a debate on Port and Border Control aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill which took place on 30 January 1989 Hind pointed out that, "the border between the Six Counties and the Republic is not a natural border. It is very long and impossible to police adequately, and people do not always cross it using roads. They go down many of the cart tracks that criss-cross the border. But the majority of the arms, explosives and equipment used by the IRA is brought into Northern Ireland via that border. Many of them are brought into the Republic from all over the world. People who cross the border immediately come under suspicion." He continued, "People who have an honest and legitimate explanation for their movements have nothing to fear. Anyone who is carrying on his business normally has nothing to fear from the schedule. But if people cannot give an adequate explanation, there must be further investigation. Common sense applies very much in this regard. It is nonsense...to say that the people who live there and who cross the border regularly should be exempt from strip searches. Those are exactly the people who should be searched, if they cannot give a reasonable explanation. They must be asked, "If you have nothing to fear, why do you not go through the normal check points? Why do you cross fields or use cart tracks?"[42]

In February 1988, Hind presented a Private Member's Bill to control embryo research and invited along with a Parliamentary British delegation to an audience with the Pope. In a debate in the House of Commons on 4 February 1988 Hind introduced the Bill stating that a Department of Health & Social Security Report identified the fact that, "there are deep feelings inside and outside the House over the sensitive issue of embryo research."

Hind revealed that he was president of the charity Action Research for the Crippled Child in his constituency. For Hind, "there [was] a deeper and more fundamental argument about the nature of life. Whatever view we may take about this, our view of life and its creation is fundamental to this issue." Hind explained that, "The major division between us is that those of us who would outlaw research on embryos believe that life begins at fertilisation, inside or outside the womb. Once fertilisation begins there is the potential for life." Hind went on to explain, "It has been suggested that the embryo has only the chance for life. Not only has it a chance for life; the embryo is life. We should not forget that fundamental point. It has also been said that the embryo has a chance to develop. I would argue that we should not deprive that life of the chance for development. Embryonic human beings must not be treated like laboratory rabbits. Research on embryos would bring about such treatment. Most important of all, embryos should have not just a chance for development. The issue is about human rights. It is about the right to live and the most important issue of human dignity. We must consider the fact that those embryos have the right to live. It is their human right to live, and we must protect that right." For Hind, "For too long the law has ignored the rights of the unborn child. We will be able to protect those rights when legislation is introduced on this matter. We will be able to vote and correct the imbalance that has existed for many years." He continued, "Another argument that is put against it is what I would call the "not yet" fallacy—that the embryo is not yet a person, not yet a member of the human race, and for that reason it is quite all right to treat it as a spare, to be experimented on and frozen. These things are permissible, but I totally reject all of these arguments. I take the view —and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will take the same view— that the embryo is a person with the potential for life and has human rights. We must respect those rights." He further continued, "Everybody in the human race started as that little cluster of cells that has been much maligned. That cluster of cells has led to life for people throughout this country and the world. We must respect it. One of the problems in the attitude of those engaged in embryo research is the failure to accept that need for respect." Hind stressed the urgency of the Bill, arguing, "In the past few months, since introducing my Bill, I have considered some of the research that is going on. No one has come forward and said that he has made a major breakthrough with the use of fertilised embryos in research. It has been a case of saying, "Tomorrow, tomorrow." But, while we do nothing, these things march on." On that basis, "It is time to deal with the problem." He believed, "Legislation cannot be brought forward soon enough. I look forward in the next few months to debating this most important subject."[43]

In a House of Commons Debate which took place on 23 April 1990, Hind stated, "We are debating an issue that attracts strong feelings" He stated he had, "received many letters on the subject. I also received a petition signed by 800 constituents urging me to vote," in support of controlling embryo research. Indeed, he revealed that, "At 7 o'clock this evening, one of my constituents felt that she had to send me a telephone message that she is against embryo research. That is the sort of feeling," he said, "that the issue attracts." He argued, "that there needs to be some recognition of the limitations on research and a recognition of when life begins. Those issues lie at the root of the problems." "Science," he argued, "Science cannot be the be-all and end-all; there must be control." He further argued, "we must decide fundamentally when life begins. For me, the essential part of life is when the ovum and sperm join at the moment of conception, whether that is inside the womb or outside in the case of IVF. It seems that it is an insult to common sense to suggest that there can be a 14-day gap from that moment during which some hon. Members wish to allow research to take place. It is being said that there is some sort of limbo in which life does not exist. Life must begin at the moment of conception, and from that point it must be respected and, therefore, protected." Hind stated, "As a lawyer, I can tell the Committee that there is no specific definition of when life begins. Voting for,"a an amendment in the Embryo Research Bill introduced by the Government following the failure of his own Private Members Bill , he believed, "will lay down a definition of where we the law-makers, supported by scientific evidence, believe that life begins" He continued, "Once that has been laid down, it can be followed by a series of protections for the unborn child. I do not accept that the fertilised embryo is, for the first 14 days, merely a cluster of undifferentiated cells. It is the source of life from which life grows and it must be respected as part of life. It is not good enough for hon. Members to say that in the gap from day one to day 14 nothing happens, that it does not exist, and that in some way it is a pre-embryo that has no life, no personality, no existence. That is nothing more than an excuse for those who support research to justify what they have done and what they intend to do in the future under the Bill." Hind argued, "We must stand firm and give a lead. We must give a definition and provide a framework for the future, both for the law and for science. It is our duty to establish that, and no one else will take on that duty. Although we are laymen, it is a duty that we must accept." It was his belief that, " Hind concluded that, "for sound moral reasons because we would be protecting life, providing definition to it and giving a framework of morality to what we are doing. Those of us who respect life will recognise that it is important to do that." On that basis he encouraged Parliament to, "vote in favour of [the amendment he supported] and against the Bill as drafted."[44]

In a further debate on the 2nd Reading of the Bill which took place in the House of Commons, on 20 June 1990 Hind stated, "although I support IVF, I am totally opposed to destructive research." He continued, "when an embryo is fertilised, an individual is created. I do not subscribe to the view that there is a pre-embryo period of 14 days when, in effect, nothing exists but that, at the end of that period, there is an embryo capable of growing into a human being. The most offensive aspect of the Bill as it stands is that it means that embryos can be created, used and destroyed. That means destroying embryos which, if implanted in the mother's womb, would have grown into human beings. To destroy embryos is totally unacceptable to me, to my colleagues on both sides of the House and to those who share the view of the all-party pro-life group in the House." He expressed his deep concern that, "here is no effective control in the Bill over the creation for the purpose of research of embryos which can be sold on. A trade could develop and embryos would, in effect, be sold on for any purpose or any use. Those who share my view regard that as totally unacceptable and an insult to humankind." For Hind the key question was, "stop a trade in fertilised embryos? Where will it lead us? It will lead us down a slippery slope, down which many hon. Members will not logically want to go in any circumstances." He continued, "there [is] no legislative protection for the unborn child at that time. It is something that I believe in. Many hon. Members share that view." Hind argued that, "Three major arguments are important to [the amendment being put forward by Pro Life MPs.] The first is that it will have no effect on in vitro fertilisation. That is very important. That has been put to me by parents who are infertile. Secondly, and most important, it will prevent the creation of embryos for research and ultimate destruction. Thirdly it is my considered opinion that if this amendment had been in operation, the research that was carried out by Professor Steptoe and Professor Browne which led to the IVF implantation of fertilised embryos and consequently the birth of children would have continued. They were not thinking in terms other than the fact that they were providing children for infertile parents. Purely and simply, that was their aim. They took it no further. They were not thinking of research to further contraception which this amendment will prevent. That is a fundamental argument for the amendment." He continued, "A large amount of research can be carried out without using embryos. The impression gained is that there is no other means of solving the problem of infertility other than the use of embryos. Many of us recognise that that is nonsense. Destructive research is something that I deplore and oppose."[45]

During his service in the House of Commons he served on standing committees on criminal justice, employment, media, small business, local government, prevention of terrorism, armed forces and health.

In Parliamentary debates and votes on the EU, Hind strongly supported Margaret Thatcher's proposal to enter the Single Market and supported the government's privatisation programme.

Hind was MP candidates friend in !990 to Colette Jones Northern Ireland Conservative in the Upper Bann By-election, the first contested by the Conservatives since 1945 and the first time since the "Equal Citizenship" campaign had sought to get the major UK parties to organise in the province. 1990 Upper Bann by-election Jones received 1,038 Votes. Ulster Unionist Party candidate David Trimble is now a Conservative Peer.

In December 1991 Along with David Shaw (British politician) MP for Dover used the privilege of the House of Commons in a debate on Pension Funds during which he mentioned a Private Members Bill he had introduced on Pension Funds to introduce evidence of irregularities in the Pension Funds under the control of the Late Robert Maxwell, owner of the Daily Mirror into the public arena.

In the debate which took place in the House of Commons on 12 December 1991 Hind stated, "I have two major concerns. The first is the long-term need to protect pension fund contributors, and the second, which has worked as a catalyst, is the appropriation from the Daily Mirror and Maxwell Communication Corporation pension fund, of between £300 and £500 million by the major shareholder, the recently deceased Mr. Robert Maxwell. That in itself points to the need for closer consideration of the matter and probably for reform.

Earlier today, in support of this debate, I introduced a Bill to provide a framework of protection for contributors to and beneficiaries of pension funds. In future, large occupational pension funds will be a major source of British wealth. It is not without significance that we have obliged the public to contribute to pension funds to provide for their old age. We must also provide a framework which will protect them and ensure that those funds are available to benefit them when the time comes.

As the population ages, pension funds will become more significant as support for large numbers of workers in their old age and will play an important part in investment in the economy. We need only look around the City and at company reports to see the importance of pension funds as a form of investment in our major companies and in the economy.

First, I want to address the problems of Mirror Group Newspapers and the Maxwell Communication Corporation. This debacle—that is the only word to describe it—must under no circumstances be allowed to happen again. That, as much as anything, is what this debate is about."

He continued after allowing an intervention, "Mr. Robert Maxwell, a former Labour Member of Parliament, was the subject of an inquiry in respect of his company, Pergamon Press. The inspector's report said of him: This man should never be allowed to control a public company. 1070 How right that inspector was. How foolish we were not to take due note of that incisive comment, by a man who read Mr. Maxwell's character extremely well."

He further continued, "Robert Maxwell helped himself to the Mirror pension fund. While professional journalists—rightly, in my view—investigated the financial misdeeds of others, Maxwell had his hand in their pocket and robbed them blind. That was not all. A more serious aspect is that, after Robert Maxwell's death, we are led to believe by the newspapers that a further £300 million went missing from the group's various pension funds, which suggests that such activities went deeper than just one man, and that others were involved. They too must be called to account, and we know that those matters are now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.

The existing law has failed us in respect of the proper control and management of pension funds. The law is clearly defined. It is based on the law of trust—and most pension funds are trusts. There was a major judgment on that subject in 1883. In the case of Speight, the judges held: Trustees also have a duty to act diligently and prudently…in selecting an investment the trustee must take as much care as a prudent man would take in making an investment for the benefit of persons for whom he felt morally obliged to provide. They were saying, in the language of the Victorian era, that a trustee should be as prudent in his selection of investments as he would be in dealing with his own.

More recently, in the case of Cowan v. Scargill in 1984, the same sentiment was repeated in modern-day language: Trustees are required to exercise their powers in the best interest of present and future beneficiaries; trustees must put on one side their own personal, social, or political views". Those are clear guidelines to the way in which pension funds should operate. The Maxwell affair has clearly shown that a coach and horses was driven through that law, so we must consider carefully the need to change it.”

After allowing another intervention Hind continued further, “My Bill would not allow a director or shareholder to serve as a member of the pension fund trust of the employer company. Control of the pension fund should be at arm's length, by independent persons who are not involved in the management of the employer company. Robert Maxwell proved the undesirability of having directors or chairmen who are in control of both the company, as majority shareholders, and the pension fund. He was a fund trustee, along with his two sons, so effectively he controlled both the company and the fund. That led to the problems that the fund faces today.

If one individual holds a dominant commercial position in respect of a pension fund, he or she will be able to direct those who operate the fund, in the same way that he or she manages the company—and will be able to select those 1071 persons who are to serve as trustees and manage the fund. That clearly happened in respect of the MGM and MCC pension funds.”

After a further intervention Hind continued, “My Bill advocates that there should be no nominee companies, and that a pension fund should be a recognised legal entity. The people who control a fund should be clearly defined, as should the rights of contributors. I will return to that aspect later.

If one person dominates the fund, directors are appointed by this majority shareholder, as well as the trustees. On 31 January, Lord Williams of Elvel, Labour's deputy leader in another place, and a director of Mirror Group Newspapers, addressed their Lordships on that very point—on corporate governance. He raised questions on comments made by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Technology, saying—“

At this point he was upbraided by the Deputy Speaker, Betty Boothroyd who stated, “Order. The hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware that hon. Members are not allowed to quote directly what has been said by a Member of the Upper House unless that Member is a Minister. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would paraphrase.”

Hind responded, “Lord Williams of Elvel was talking about chief executives, and about non-executive directors confirming what he described as the outrageous ambitions of a chairman or chief executive. Now, the outrageous ambitions of another chief executive, unfortunately deceased, have been revealed for all to see. Perhaps Lord Williams and one or two others should take their own advice.”

After some procedural debate Hind further continued, “An important aspect of the relationship between directors and trustees is illustrated by the closeness of the relationship between the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund and the companies. The accounts for last year contain an interesting section headed "Investment Report". It states As part of this process, the following changes were made in the structure of the Scheme's investment. Due to uncertain stock market conditions and relatively high interest rates, the Trustees instructed its investment managers to sell stocks, and hold an average of 20 per cent. of their portfolios in the form of cash deposits". The trustees and directors must have been aware—as it was in the report—that they were converting stocks into cash, which the company could subsequently borrow and invest in other Maxwell companies. As we know, that is probably what happened. It almost seems as if preparations were made for what subsequently took place. The report continues: a further £12,034,000 was invested in the Common Investment Fund...this fund is managed by Bishopsgate Investment Management (BIM) in conjunction with other pension funds managed by the Pergamon Group Pensions Departments. The Scheme's participation in the CIF remains crucial to the Trustee's overall strategy". The management of a pension fund must be independent of the employer company. BIM—a company that was charged with the management of a large proportion of the pension funds—was a private company wholly owned by the Maxwell family. Effectively, they were appointing the directors and staff, and, therefore, handling all the funds from the pension schemes.

We are not discussing an arm's-length transaction. If legislation is to be drawn up, as I advocate in my Bill, that is precisely the sort of abuse that we should set out to prevent.”

Further interventions took place following which Hind stated, “While...people were investigating other people's pockets, Robert Maxwell had his hand in their pockets and was robbing them blind. That is a fact of life. I feel deeply sorry for them, and hope that their experience will be a salutary lesson that will help the rest of the country to avoid repeating it.

We cannot avoid the fact that the people appointed to manage the funds must carry some responsibility. Sycophants and nominees of the dominant majority shareholder of the employer company must not be in a position to manage the company.

Lord Donoughue, a Labour peer, was one of the directors of Bishopsgate until fairly recently. Interestingly enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is reported to have said in another place—[Interruption.]—I mean, Mr. Speaker. I apologise—it was the wig that threw me.

In the other place, Lord Donoughue said that tame directors were often appointed—friends of the majority shareholder, who would not ask too many awkward questions.”

Following prompting from the floor Hind adopted the term, flunkeys to describe such individuals arguing, “We must ensure that no more flunkeys are appointed to pension funds. It is not in the interests of the general public.”

He yet further continued, “The fourth matter to which the House should give serious consideration is the proportion of any pension fund that can be invested in the employer company. I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister says about that. I know that the Government are giving serious consideration to restricting to 5 per cent. the proportion of a total fund that may be invested in the employer company. I would certainly advocate that as a sensible course. It would prevent a pension fund from collapsing should a company go into receivership.

A recent example from the north-west was provided by the Lewis's stores group, which has recently gone into receivership. It was the subject of a motion under Standing Order No. 20 on which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I spoke some months ago. The receivers found that in February 1990 the company had sold an empty building in Bolton to the pension fund for £2.4 million. That building has not returned any profit to the pension fund and since then, I am told, it has declined in value.

In April 1990, £250,000 worth of contributions to the pension fund were not paid by the company. The following summer, that company borrowed £1.25 million from the fund. That sum has not been repaid, and since then the group of companies has gone into receivership, been broken up and sold. The money is probably lost to the pension contributors and beneficiaries. Although the group owned several department stores, it was not a big company. We must act with care to guard against such things happening.”

After another intervention he made his fifth point, stating, “The fifth point to be included in a Bill is that there should be a declaration that the assets of the pension fund are the property of the contributors and not of the employer company. A case has been decided on those lines, but the principle has not yet gained widespread acceptance.

The first time when such a case came to my notice was in the mid-1980s when BTR—the Birmingham Tyre and Rubber company—tried to take over the Pilkington Group, which is one of the major employers in my constituency. On that occasion, it was made clear to me by the employees who worked and lived in my constituency 1074 that they had real anxiety that the balances that were oversubscribed in the pension fund would be taken by BTR as part of the takeover and would be used for the benefit of BTR because they would be regarded as part of the acquisition.

It is important that we make it clear that that should not be allowed to happen, and that all payments into the pension fund are the property of the contributors and of the beneficiaries. If that principle were established, even if there were oversubscriptions, the contributions would be carried forward in perpetuity for the benefit of future contributors and future recipients of pensions.

Mirror Group Newspapers is a similar case. To whom do overpayments into a pension fund belong? At Mirror Group Newspapers, there has been a recent holiday payment for the company of the 14 per cent. that should have been made into the pension fund. That means that the company is benefiting from what would normally pass into the company pension fund for the benefit of the employees. I should like such practices to end, and we should take a clear look at the problem. Oversubscriptions should be not for the benefit of the employer company, but for the benefit of the contributors and of those who will receive pensions from the fund.”

After further interventions, Hind made his concluding remarks, “The fifth point to be included in a Bill is that there should be a declaration that the assets of the pension fund are the property of the contributors and not of the employer company. A case has been decided on those lines, but the principle has not yet gained widespread acceptance.

The first time when such a case came to my notice was in the mid-1980s when BTR—the Birmingham Tyre and Rubber company—tried to take over the Pilkington Group, which is one of the major employers in my constituency. On that occasion, it was made clear to me by the employees who worked and lived in my constituency 1074 that they had real anxiety that the balances that were oversubscribed in the pension fund would be taken by BTR as part of the takeover and would be used for the benefit of BTR because they would be regarded as part of the acquisition.

It is important that we make it clear that that should not be allowed to happen, and that all payments into the pension fund are the property of the contributors and of the beneficiaries. If that principle were established, even if there were oversubscriptions, the contributions would be carried forward in perpetuity for the benefit of future contributors and future recipients of pensions.

Mirror Group Newspapers is a similar case. To whom do overpayments into a pension fund belong? At Mirror Group Newspapers, there has been a recent holiday payment for the company of the 14 per cent. that should have been made into the pension fund. That means that the company is benefiting from what would normally pass into the company pension fund for the benefit of the employees. I should like such practices to end, and we should take a clear look at the problem. Oversubscriptions should be not for the benefit of the employer company, but for the benefit of the contributors and of those who will receive pensions from the fund.”[46]

In the 1990 Leadership election Hind campaigned for and supported Michael Heseltine for Leader of the Conservative Party.

He led adjournment debates on the need for a New Ormskirk Hospital eventually approved and built in 1992-3 and introduced private members bills from behind the Chair on phoenix companies and protection of employees in redundancy. There was competition for Capital Funding in Lancashire for New Hospitals in Lancashire in Chorley and Ormskirk. In an adjournment debate on the construction of a new and modern hospital wing at the present Ormskirk general hospital in west Lancashire.which took place on 16 March 1984 Hind bluntly stated, "The Ormskirk general hospital is the main acute ward, operating, emergency and accident centre for west Lancashire and is based upon Ormskirk and Skelmersdale, and covers the large area of surrounding agricultural villages.

Until 1982, the plans that had been in force for many years to construct a new hospital at Ormskirk had been one of the priorities of the North-West regional health authority, and, until 1983, it was planned to construct the hospital in 1986–87. It is now being reconsidered under the capital programme for that region, and is likely to slip back in terms of date of construction and priority behind a hospital that it is proposed to construct at Chorley. This," he argued, "is not satisfactory." He went on to explain why. He stated, "The Ormskirk general hospital is the main general and surgical hospital for an area stretching north-south from the river Ribble, in the north, to Rainford on the outskirts of St. Helens, in the south, and from Southport and Formby in the west" to the outskirts of Wigan. It takes into the area two small towns, and a population of well over 100,000. It is the main emergency and accident centre for that area, and it is ill-equipped to provide the kind of services which it is called upon to provide.

The major problem with the hospital is that the major acute wards are situated in nissen huts, built in the early 1940s for the treatment of wounded service men who at that time were taken to what was then a cottage hospital on the outskirts of Liverpool. Those nissen huts were built with a temporary life of about 10 years. They have reached the stage where their repair is far beyond justifiable cost.

An acute patient at Ormskirk general hospital is taken from one of those nissen huts in an electric wagon, which looks very much like a milk float with solid steel sides, to the operating theatre along a small road that passes through the centre of the hospital. When the patient has been operated on, the reverse process is carried on.

This hospital is one of the few remaining hospitals which have such wards. Surely in 1984, some 33 years after the construction of these hospital wards, this cannot be an acceptable way to conduct health care. The fact that these wards will be very costly to replace is supported by the district health authority and the responsible works officer. The operating theatre at the hospital is some 50 yards from the wards, and the patients must travel on these carts come rain, hail, shine or snow. Whatever the weather, they have to experience this unsatisfactory procedure.

The operating facilities at west Lancashire, although very adequate, are not suitable for an area of this size as a civilian emergency centre, which is the role they are called upon to carry out. In recent years, the M58 was constructed through west Lancashire. If more than a handful of people are involved in an accident on the M58, and require surgery, they will have to be taken to Preston, which is 16 miles away. That cannot be acceptable. Their chances of survival must be much more limited than if a proper hospital, capable of providing the necessary accident and emergency facilities of sufficient quality, were built at Ormskirk.

The third problem, which is not often considered, is the position of the staff and consultants at the hospital. They took their posts on the understanding that in future they would work in a modern, properly furbished hospital. It does their morale no good if their new hospital slips beyond the targets originally planned for 1986–87.

The answer to all those major problems is to provide a hospital wing that is capable of providing operating theatres, acute wards and proper medical facilities for the treatment of acute patients, all of which are associated with a modern civilian emergency centre. That is what was planned for the Ormskirk hospital in the third phase of its development, to be built in 1986–87."

In summary he concluded, "I...urge the regional health authority to reconsider its position. New facilities would provide more than 130 acute beds, eight intensive care beds, children's beds, 17 adult care beds, five operating theatres, an accident and emergency unit, fracture clinic, six X-ray rooms, a plaster theatre, an anaesthetic department and various administrative and ancillary facilities."

He continued, "Since 1981, when the Chorley district health authority was created, Chorley began to be given priority over Ormskirk by the North-West regional health authority. The arguments must be examined. In the late 1970s, a magnificent new hospital was built in Preston for the patients of that area. At that time, Chorley was included in the Preston area. The people of Chorley can still go to their hospital and benefit from its facilities."

"The arguments about Ormskirk have not changed.", he argued, "The facilities remain the same and the hospital remains the same. The pressing need has not changed, but the regional health authority has changed its mind. The authority," he stated, "should have another look at the matter." He argued that there needed to be a reconsideration by "the regional health authority...whether it is satisfying the needs of patients in west Lancashire when it is not providing them with what would surely be expected in every other town and city — a proper hospital with acute beds and a sufficient number of wards.

Money has been spent in west Lancashire, plans have been made and the hospital is just about ready to be built. The slippage means that all the time, effort and resources put into developing a modern hospital for Ormskirk are in danger of being wasted. That is not acceptable."[47]

In 1990 Hind obtained his desired objective. In an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on 18 April 1990 on Wrightington Hospital outside Warrington Hind revealed, "In the past 12 months we have been granted £25 million by the North Western regional health authority to build a new hospital. I am pleased to say that it is now under construction. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health recently visited West Lancashire to cut the sod to start building the new hospital."[48]

The patients of Chorley will not be harmed by waiting a few more years for the development of their hospital. The patients of Ormskirk have waited for 20 years, and that is long enough. It is time for reality to take over and for proper facilities to be provided for patient care.

Hind fought to prevent Pilkingtons PLC being taken over by BTR from Birmingham who described themselves as a ’rust bucket operation’. After the takeover was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission employees at Lathom research centre presented Hind with a glass bucket engraved "Our bucket wont rust".

At Prime Minister's Questions on 13 January 1987 Hind asked the Prime Minister, "Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy day to look at much of the press comment about the takeover bid by BTR for Pilkington? Will she bear in mind, especially in the light of the arguments about the north-south divide, the importance of Pilkington to the north-west region and have words today with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and urge him to refer that takeover bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?" Margaret Thatcher replied "As my hon. Friend said, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who must wait to receive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading."[49]

Hind kept up the pressure for a referral to the Monopolies and Merger Commission when he asked the Secretary of State Paul Channon in a debate in the House of Commons on BTR and Pilkington Brothers which took place on 15 January 1987, "Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the disappointment of many of the Pilkington employees in the north-west at the non-referral of BTR's bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? However, some Conservative Members appreciate that there was a major lack of a monopoly element that would have provided him with the major ground to do so. Will he bear in mind that, through research and development and hard work, a loyal work force in Pilkington has made that company the premier glass manufacturer in the world? That loyalty will not easily be transferred to a conglomerate run by BTR? Will he ensure that the Pilkington shareholders will, having seen the impressive profit forecasts and long-term stable investment, be allowed to maintain their investment free from the sort of interference that we saw in the Guinness bid for Distillers in the recent past?"[50] Hind was successful. The decision was taken by the Government to refer the attempted takeover to the Monopolies and Merger Commission which ruled it was not in the public interest for the takeover to take place.

Hind took part in a discussion on the Granada TV programme Upfront on so called Acid House parties arguing in favour of bringing them under the existing licensing legislation.[51] In a debate in the House of Commons on Orders of the Day — Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill - the Regulation of so-called Acid House Parties - a Bill which he was a sponsor of which took place at 9:34 am on 9 March 1990 Hind stated, "I and many of my colleagues remember going to major music festivals such as that at the Isle of Wight and the national jazz and blues festival at Windsor. We understand such events and we enjoyed them. I promoted a concert at which the best selling album in the world was recorded —The Who Live at Leeds in 1971. That was one of many concerts that I promoted. I faced problems with the police, the local authority, the fire service and so on. I assure anyone considering the Bill that no legitimate promoter has anything to fear from it." Later in the debate he revealed, "there has been a great deal of concern about the matter. A Granada television programme called "Up Front" will be shown next Friday. It will be produced in the warehouse and will highlight for young people throughout the north-west".[52]

Yet later in the debate he further explained, "that there is a great deal of fun to be had from open air concerts. I well remember the Isle of Wight music festivals and the national jazz and blues festival, which was promoted on racecourses all over the south-east in the late 1960s. They were major events that were enjoyed by many people, including some who are now Members of this place. Of course 20 years have passed.

We know that there is much to be enjoyed at such events. I cannot emphasise too strongly that we are not in the business of destroying young people's fun. On the contrary, we are concerned to protect them in a way that will free them from risk so that they can enjoy the music that they go to hear and the entertainment generally that they seek. The Bill will enable them to do exactly that. It will prevent them also from being exploited by the organisers of some acid house parties. It will stop young people from being damaged by attending them.

The Bill does not do anything that is especially radical. It does not create new offences. Instead, it provides teeth for the existing legislation. It requires all those who run acid house parties to obtain a licence from the local authority. If the organisers break the conditions of the licence, a heavy fine or a sentence of imprisonment will be imposed upon them. If they fail to apply for a licence, they can be fined up to £20,000 or sentenced to six months' imprisonment."

He argued, "That might seem draconian in some respects, but when we consider how acid house parties have been operated over the past few years it is clear that there is a national problem.

Many of the parties have been run in dangerous circumstances. There has been a lack of safety and dangers have faced the attenders, the customers. Major disruption has been caused to the locality in which the parties have taken place."

He went on, "I hope that the public will realise that it is not only Conservative local authorities that are calling for action to be taken in respect of the problems that arise from acid house parties. It is an issue that crosses party lines; it is recognised by Labour and Liberal-Democrat local authorities as well as by Conservative authorities."

He further continued, "The most important feature that we have to consider is the protection of the young people who go to acid house parties. He revealed that, "in Blackburn, Lancashire, where an acid house party took place last month. He told us—this was reported in the press—that there were exit signs over doors which if opened would have led to no fire escape or staircase. Anyone who opened them would have been faced with a huge drop, resulting in death. That is typical. The organisers of acid house parties are using old warehouses, tents in fields or other premises which are often derelict. There are obvious and immediate dangers.

The legitimate promoter of a concert is subject to a series of rules and regulations that bear on numbers, fire safety, electricity and lighting. They relate to a range of matters and they are designed to protect those who attend these events.

At the ad hoc acid house party it is not the organiser who is in danger but the customer and the performers. Promoters have been exploiting those who attend by selling drugs. In a recent case a promoter of an acid house party was sent to prison for 10 years for peddling drugs at the parties.

There is also a problem because of the lack of safety and access to such parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) gave a good example of a field being used for a party in his constituency. Suddenly 5,000 young people descended upon it. The cars that brought them blocked the lanes adjacent to the field. If there had been an accident due to lack of adequate fire and safety precautions it would have been impossible for ambulances and fire engines to get through. A legitimate promoter takes safety factors into consideration In addition the local authority issues an entertainment licence for an event and would ensure that there was proper access, but that does not happen in the case of illegal acid house parties.

The local inhabitants of the area surrounding the party are also affected. They are hurt more than any other people and there is nothing that they can do about it. They can call the police but if it is an impromptu party the police will have had little notice of it, and the local authority will know nothing about it. Thousands of young people can descend on a site causing noise, traffic congestion and disruption to the local inhabitants"

He said he spoke, "from personal experience. The location of some of the parties is amazing. A few months ago I went to a housing estate in the middle of Skelmersdale to meet members of the residents' association. They told me that acid house parties were taking place on the estate and they took me to the site of the parties, which was a flat. Hundreds of young people were milling about. It caused disruption, particularly for parents with young children trying to sleep through the noise of traffic. The Bill will ensure that those problems—the noise of traffic and the disruption to people's lives—will be controlled.

I suspect that the major fear of the general public is that the Bill will restrict freedom to party—to use the expression of those who attend—but of course it will not.

The whole House accepts that the promoters of acid house parties or entertainment events of any kind have responsibilities to the public living in the immediate vicinity and to the young people who attend. At the moment the amount of money that can be made by promoters of pay-parties is so enormous that they can afford to pay a fine of £2,000. If one makes thousands of pounds from a party—I am informed from investigations into the matter that many promoters do—£2,000 is just part of the overheads and a small amount, so they can drive a coach and horses through the law and disregard the consequences. The Bill is intended to deal with cowboy operators—the people who do not care about their customers or the inhabitants of the area surrounding the party and are only interested in making vast amounts of money."

He argued, "having obtained a licence, a promoter may then completely ignore the local authority's terms and conditions. He will be as guilty of endangering the lives of his customers and the community as an unlicensed acid house party organiser. The law cannot be sterile in that regard; it cannot stand back and do nothing.

A local authority may impose requirements involving exits and gangways, and ban fire hazards such as accumulated rubbish and unsafe electrical equipment. Those of us who remember the Bradford City football ground fire will know how dangerous rubbish can be. A local authority may require the provision of adequate sanitary appliances and proper ventilation and—most important of all—stipulate a maximum number who may attend, and the provision of adequate fire-fighting equipment. Any legitimate licence holder who breaches those requirements must be dealt with as severely as anyone else.

A licence holder making vast amounts of money may ignore important safety provisions precautions because a £2,000 fine is not worth worrying about. That could mean sending many people to their deaths, or at least laying them open to the possibility of injury. Parliament cannot afford to take such an attitude."

He believed, "suggestion of a maximum fine of £20,000, with the option of six months in prison, would constitute a big deterrent for cowboy operators hoping to escape the full force of the law. That is a maximum, however, and would not be used in every instance. I am a lawyer. The maximum penalty that can be imposed by the criminal courts is, I have found, rarely imposed. The court considers the breach of the licence conditions, the circumstances of the breach, the circumstances surrounding that evening's events and then weighs up the seriousness of the breach. A promoter who puts the facts properly before the court and who has acted reasonably will not be in difficulty...Magistrates will realise that he has done his best to stay within the law and they will deal with him accordingly —in contrast to the way in which they will deal with the cowboy operator. A maximum fine of £2,000 is insufficient to deal with potential cowboys who apply for a licence and then completely disregard the conditions attached to it.

If an illegal acid house party takes place, the local authority can issue a licence after the event, to the effect that a statutory nuisance—that of noise—has been committed. However, the nuisance has been committed; it does not help those who suffered as a result of the nuisance to deal with it after the event. Members of the public can prosecute in the magistrates courts, under the noise abatement provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, alleging breach of privacy. They have to prove in court that enjoyment of their property has been disturbed. However, as prosecution takes place after the event, such measures are inadequate...The Bill would provide local authorities with more powers. They would be able to deal with noise nuisance more forcefully. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering whether noise at acid house parties is causing damage to health and whether anything can therefore be done to control noise levels at such parties.

We must prevent dishonest promoters of acid house parties from exploiting young people for personal gain. We must ensure that the legislation is strong enough, which it is not at the moment, to deal properly with such people. I welcome the [promise] to introduce measures which will lead to the confiscation of profits over £10,000 made at illegal events when the promoters of such events have been found guilty in the courts. That will add to the deterrent provided by my hon. Friend's Bill, and that fact should be made known to the public."

Hind concluded, "the legitimate operators of events such as some of the acid house parties that have been promoted for public entertainment will have nothing to fear if they run a legitimate event, ensure that drug dealers will not be there exploiting our young people, prevent any criminal activities from taking place, work with the police on car parking, traffic and nuisance, approach the local authority for a licence and adhere to its conditions. Our young people will then be able safely to enjoy the entertainment that those operators present. The House wishes to encourage operators who provide proper, legitimate entertainment for our children. We do not wish to encourage people who are interested only in making a quick buck at the expense of our young people and without concern for their safety. The Bill will deal with such people." He hoped that, "Members will rally round to support it and ensure that it reaches the statute book."[53]

He was awarded the CBE Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire after leaving Parliament. He was awarded the CBE in the Queens 1995 New Year Honours List for Services to Politics.

After leaving the House of Commons Hind returned to legal practise in London chambers joining 2 Kings Bench Walk.

Hind subsequently took part in a BBC Radio 4 Documentary entitled, "What does life hold for ex-MPs?" talking about his experience of returning to civilian life outside of parliament. The programme was hosted by the presenter Jim Hancock. Hind recalls how resuming his career as a criminal barrister was a struggle.[54] Interviewed for the programme he recounts how, "I had kept in contact with my chambers, although I hadn't done a case for a number of years, so I was able to go back." He continued, "But, of course, people who were in the office, many of them didn't even know who I was, I had been away for so long. And, of course, clients didn't know who you were. So you had to work really hard to get back into it." Hind further continued, "There was a very solid group of people who really didn't think you were sufficiently professional. They didn't trust you, didn't think you were serious about doing the job because you were an ex-MP." He concluded, "There was an element of mistrust, particularly in the legal profession. They really didn't take us seriously, they thought we were playing at politics."[55]

The programme drew on a study carried out by Professor Kevin Theakston and Christopher Byrne Research Assistant both of Leeds University.[56] Theakston & Byrne conclude that the transition into a ‘political afterlife’ is not as straightforward as some might think. Their research builds on a report commissioned by the Association of Former MPs in 2007, aims to shed light on the challenges former parliamentarians can face in navigating the world of work in a post-MPs’ expenses scandal world, and to learn about how to transition into a successful ‘political afterlife’.

In the 12 years Ken Hind represented Dilworth he supported the Save Longridge Campaign argued against a number of planning applications[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] and against excessive development of housing[72] At the time Hind stated, "Currently there are about 3,000 households here, but if all the developments applied for are approved – over 1,000 houses in Longridge, plus 503 on the Preston side a stone’s throw from the town centre – that’s potentially a 50pc increase." Hind also called for greater co-operation with the bordering City of Preston over planning policy.[73] Hind believed that ultimately the inability of Planning Authorities to appeal the decisions of Planning Inspectors was what was responsible for the Ribble Valley being "under siege" from developers. As he stated at the time, "Unelected inspectors in planning appeals interpret the National Planning Policy Framework without the right of appeal to the courts to check if their conclusions are correct. Planning departments like ours locally are under huge pressure and have to interpret planning law in the light of day-to-day changes. You only ever destroy a green field once. It’s a precious commodity which can never be replaced."[74] In 2010 he initiated the creation of Longridge Town Team to encourage commercial development.[75] This included support to expand one of the major employers in Longridge, Singletons cheese manufacturers. He encouraged the Town Council to create a Neighbourhood Plan which was successfully approved in 2018[76][77] and supported and pressed through the Council preservation of the Longridge recreation ground by deed in trust, to preserve this communal space for future generations.[78] Along with the Longridge Councillors Hind supported the demolition of part of a dilapidated mill to allow Singletons cheese manufacturer, one of the largest employers in Longridge to expand on their existing site and not relocate outside the Borough.[79][80] Hind also pressed with other councillors with Lancashire County Council for the preservation of the Longridge youth centre in Berry Lane which now remains open and improvement of youth services in the town.[81] As RVBC representative to the Longridge Social Enterprise Company he supported the project driven by Rupert Swarbrick to renovate the old station buildings, now the headquarters of the Town Council, cafe, heritage centre and community facility.[82]

Ken Hind's former ward of Dilworth returned two Conservative councillors.