| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Straw: I have not received the letter--[ Interruption. ]- -and I do not intend to look at a copy now. I certainly do not withdraw the matter-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman on the Back Bench wishes to do gymnastics, I suggest that he does so elsewhere.
Mr. Straw: I have the minutes here, I have looked through them very carefully and I have seen the full transcripts of the Secretary of State's evidence. He moved from the particular to the general and said that there was no need therefore for him to talk to Mr. Lewis about the matters. In one answer after another--we are not just relying on that--the Secretary of State has denied that he sought to interfere in respect of two operational decisions made by Mr. Derek Lewis.
The first operational decision with which the Home Secretary said that he did not interfere was whether Mr. Lewis should, instead of moving Mr. Marriott, suspend him. The second operational decision with which he said that he did not interfere was as to the timing of those decisions. We say that he interfered in both.
Let me return to the minutes. Do the minutes not show beyond any doubt that the Secretary of State did indeed seek to interfere with that decision, that he raised it, that he sought to have Mr. Marriott suspended--and not transferred instead--from his duty? I offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer that question. Do the minutes not show beyond any question of doubt that the Secretary of State did indeed raise the matter-- that he told Mr. Lewis that he wanted Mr. Marriott suspended and not transferred? The Home Secretary must deal with the matter now. Did he or did he not seek to change Mr. Lewis's mind? Again, the Home Secretary refuses to answer the questions that we have put and to accept the truth of this matter, which is that he sought the suspension of Mr. Marriott-- contrary to the statement that he issued, which I draw to his attention again, that he did not tell Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately.
The minutes should corroborate Mr. Lewis's evidence if there is any question of doubt that the Home Secretary did indeed tell Mr. Lewis. If that is not so, will the Secretary of State--
Column 515
Sir Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
Mr. Straw: No, I am not giving way. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman--whoever it was--would volunteer for the Chairmen's Panel. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is making an important speech and he deserves to be heard. I should be grateful if hon. Members would now stop their tittering and listen to the speech.
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put it to the Prime Minister on Tuesday that the Home Secretary personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended immediately. We believe--there is no question because the minutes confirm it, which the Secretary of State has refused to accept until now--that he raised the issue of suspension and told the director general that. If that is not the case, he must explain why he has refused on every occasion to admit that he even raised the issue of suspension.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that when Mr. Lewis objected that it was an operational matter, the Home Secretary threatened to instruct him to do it. Does the Secretary of State deny that? Does he deny that he sought advice from his other officials in order to do that and that he gave Mr. Derek Lewis a deadline by which he had to come back and change his mind? The Secretary of State does not deny it.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we issued a statement on Tuesday, which rebutted one by one the unfounded allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday. I deny each and every one of the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition. They were unfounded, wrong and without substance.
Mr. Straw: But the statement issued by the Secretary of State in no sense acted as a complete rebuttal, and he knows it. Does he deny that he sought advice on that?
The third issue is that the Home Secretary told the operational director of the Prison Service by fax that he would announce in the House of Commons that day--and he duly announced it in his statement to the House--that the former governor of Parkhurst prison was to be removed that day. That is true. The Secretary of State--not Mr. Derek Lewis--decided that the governor of Parkhurst prison, Mr. Marriott, should be removed that day.
The question before the House today goes way beyond the employment of one man, the former governor of Parkhurst prison. It goes to the heart of whether this country should be governed by Ministers who are ready to tell the truth, and the whole truth, in the conduct of their high office, and whether they are properly to hold themselves responsible for the decisions in which they are involved. The distinction that the Secretary of State has sought to make between policy thought and the operation of the Prison Service is, in the words of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, "bogus".
Column 516
The Secretary of State has been involved in operational decisions day by day and month by month. He has evaded his responsibilities to this House. He has not been frank with this House. In our judgment, he must go.5.15 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"believes that the Home Secretary is and should be accountable to this House for all matters concerning the Prison Service; believes that he is and should be accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the Service; believes that the Director General of the Prison Service is and should be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the service; and utterly rejects the very serious allegations made about the Home Secretary's conduct towards the former Governor of Parkhurst, Mr. John Marriott."
What we have seen this afternoon and the whole of this week is a cheap and tawdry attempt to make petty party political capital out of the difficulties of the Prison Service. I shall deal in due course, closely and with relish, with each of the allegations put by the Labour party.
On Monday, I made a statement to the House about the independent report by General Sir John Learmont on one of the most wide-ranging reviews of prison security that has ever been conducted. The report followed two of the most serious operational failures in the history of the Prison Service. It is a devastating report, which severely criticises Parkhurst and its management. It says that the security manual of the Prison Service was disregarded at Parkhurst and that the most basic security procedures were not observed. It also makes the most trenchant criticisms of the management of the Prison Service generally and concludes with the following words:
"There is an abundance of excellent people within the Prison Service whose most fervent wish is to do a good and worthwhile job. They are yearning to be led to better things. Although much has been done to improve the corporate planning within the Service, this inquiry has starkly illustrated the need to address urgently shortcomings in leadership, operations and security".
I said on Monday that I had to be able to assure the House, and through it the people of this country, that the grave weaknesses in the service that have been disclosed would be put right. General Sir John Learmont said that responsibilities reached prisons board level and that the criticism stopped there. [Hon. Members:-- "That includes you."] I am not a member of the prisons board.
It was impossible for me to overlook the serious criticisms contained in that report. Of course, I took into account the lengthy submissions that the former director general put to me, which he has now made public, including his criticisms of the independent Learmont report. I had to choose between the view of the former director general and the independent views of General Learmont. I concluded that a change of leadership was required at the top of the Prison Service to address what General Learmont described as
"the shortcomings in leadership, operations and security". So I decided that the director general's appointment should be terminated.
The material on which I made that decision is before the House--the Learmont report is a published document. The shadow Home Secretary, who has made such a fuss over all this, has complete access to that document but does not have a view on that central question. He was
Column 517
unable to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). That is the smack of firm opposition that we see from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the Labour party.Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): I think that the Home Secretary can take it that we know that he sacked Mr. Lewis: that is on the record. He has, however, refused to answer specifically the question with which today's motions are concerned. He has refused to answer that question seven times, although he has promised to do so. He can dismiss one of the allegations simply by answering no at the Dispatch Box to the following question. At the meeting on 10 January did he insist that the governor of Parkhurst be removed that very day? Will he answer no, in which case one allegation will be dealt with? Did he insist, that very day, that the governor be removed--yes or no?
Mr. Howard: All the decisions--
Mr. Howard: I did not. The answer is no because all the decisions that were made that day were made by the Director General of the Prison Service.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): The Home Secretary has said that he had to choose between what Mr. Lewis has said and the Learmont report. Why, therefore, does he ignore paragraph 3.83 of the report, which says:
"The Director General also needs minimum political involvement in the day- to-day operation of the Service."?
The paragraph sets out what Sir John Learmont clearly considers to be too much political involvement in the day-to-day running of the service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot accept one part of the report but ignore that paragraph.
Mr. Howard: The report goes on to indicate that it is for the director general to balance the various parts of his responsibilities and effectively to find a way of responding to reasonable ministerial requests and of dealing with operational matters. I shall refer to that function in some detail during the course of my speech, so I urge the right hon. Gentleman to restrain himself and to have a little patience.
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Howard: I must make some progress, but I will give way in due course.
As to the question of accountability and my personal
responsibilities as Home Secretary, my position, and that of all previous Home Secretaries, is perfectly consistent and clear. I am personally accountable to the House for all matters concerning the Prison Service. I am accountable and responsible for all policy decisions relating to the service. The director general is responsible for day-to-day operations.
That distinction between policy and operations is--
Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. When I wrote to him in July, putting it to him that the
Column 518
policy of securing women prisoners in handcuffs or chains--for example when visiting their children or attending for medical treatment outside prison--was degrading and shaming, neither he nor any Minister replied to me. Eventually I received a reply from Mr. Richard Tilt, who was then director of security in the Prison Service. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really consider that keeping women prisoners in chains is not a matter of policy but merely an operational matter to be determined at discretion by staff in the Prison Service? If he means what he says about his accountability to Parliament, will he now accept that he, as Home Secretary, should personally have replied to me as a Member of Parliament about this?Mr. Howard: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. I will deal with it in some detail, which will take a little time, because it will demonstrate to the whole world the quality of judgment of the latest recruit to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman made that accusation first when he appeared on "Breakfast with Frost". He said that he had written to me about what he described as the degrading practice of keeping women prisoners in chains. I was somewhat taken aback by his allegations, so I caused inquiries to be made. I discovered that up until April this year the escape rate of women prisoners under escort, being taken from one prison to another or from prison to court, was twice that of male prisoners. As an operational matter, the Prison Service looked into it to see what differences there were between the way in which women prisoners and male prisoners were escorted. It discovered that male prisoners were handcuffed while under escort, not put in chains, and women prisoners were not. So the Prison Service itself decided, as an operational matter, and without reference to me, that, after April, in order to reduce the escape rate women prisoners would be handcuffed while under escort. That is the step it took and that is what the hon. Member for Stratford-on- Avon (Mr. Howarth), the newest recruit to the Labour party, describes as keeping women prisoners in chains. That is the nature of his judgment. That change was made by the Prison Service in April and I am happy to tell the House that as a result the escape rate of women prisoners has substantially been reduced.
Mr. Howarth: Mr. Tilt's letter makes it clear that in certain circumstances women prisoners are secured in chains.
Mr. Howard: I have given the hon. Gentleman and the House the full explanation that I received when I caused inquiries to be made into the hon. Gentleman's question. I would be interested to know--perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us--whether it is the policy of the Labour party that the escape rate should be increased. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn, who is so keen to establish his party's credentials on law and order, will tell us that he would countermand that operational decision of the Prison Service. He would say, "No. We can't have these women prisoners handcuffed while they are being taken from one prison to another." Would the hon. Gentleman like to respond?
Mr. Straw indicated dissent .
Mr. Howard: The distinction to which I referred, before I was so happily interrupted by the hon. Member
Column 519
for Stratford-on-Avon, between policy and operations is nothing new. During my statement on Sir John Woodcock's inquiry on 19 December 1994, I reminded the House of what my noble Friend, Lord Prior, had said following the escape of a number of terrorist prisoners from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. He said: "If I had felt that ministerial responsibility was such that in this case I should have resigned, I certainly should have done so. It would be a matter for resignation if the . . . inquiry showed that what happened was the result of some act of policy that was my responsibility, or that I failed to implement something that I had been asked to implement, or should have implemented. In that case, I should resign."--[ Official Report , 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 23-4.]The distinction between policy and operations is also reflected in the framework document that established the Prison Service as an executive agency. It says that the Director General of the Prison Service is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. It also says that the director general is accountable directly to me for the Prison Service's performance and operations, and that, although the Home Secretary will not normally become involved in the day-to-day management of the Prison Service, he will expect to be consulted on the handling of operational matters that could give rise to grave public or parliamentary concern. I do not imagine that any hon. Member would argue that the Parkhurst escape was not in that category.
When I received Sir John's report, I studied it very carefully. If the criticisms in it had been made of me, I should not be standing at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the two questions that arose out of the questions that I posed to him in January before the Select Committee on Home Affairs? There is a complete difference between the evidence of the Home Secretary as to what happened and what Mr. Lewis is saying. They cannot both be right. Would he release Philippa Drew, Marriott and all the other civil servants from their duty of confidentiality so that the whole story can be known? We can then know where the truth really lies.
Mr. Howard: Since neither of the people concerned was at the meeting that is the subject, apparently, of this great dispute, it is laughable to suggest that their evidence could help to resolve it. I now turn specifically and directly to the many inconsistent and unfounded allegations that have been made this week about my conduct. Many people will think it extraordinary that, the day after the publication of such a devastating report on the security of our prisons, the Leader of the Opposition chose to concentrate, not on security, not on escapes, but on allegations about the treatment of the former governor of Parkhurst.
Let me remind the House of what General Learmont said about Parkhurst under Mr. Marriott's governorship. I shall use only a few examples. Hon. Members will find many more, if they need them, in paragraphs 2.56, 2.124, 2.062, 2.07 and 2.08. General Learmont had quite a lot to say about Mr. Marriott's regime. In paragraph 2.256 he says that Mr. Marriott decided not to undertake rub-down searches. In paragraph 2.124 he says that Parkhurst
Column 520
ignored an instruction that the duty governor should be in the prison when it was unlocked and when category A inmates were associating with others.In paragraph 2.228 General Learmont says that there was
"a lack of visible leadership on the Wings and elsewhere at Parkhurst."
In paragraph 2.261, he pinpoints a
"multitude of security lapses and unacceptable practices" and concludes that there was
"little to commend in the way things were done".
Those are the words of a man whose independent assessment is beyond doubt.
Given those stringent and damning criticisms, I find it hard to understand how anyone could question the decision to remove Mr. Marriott from his duties at Parkhurst without delay, or to suggest that he has been used as a scapegoat. That is the man on whose behalf the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to take up the cudgels. The opinion of the former director general about that was perfectly clear.
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I am not giving way at the moment.
As the former director general stated to the Home Affairs Select Committee during his appearance on 18 January:
"it was essential for operational reasons that the change in governor took place immediately so that there was no distraction or confusion and there was clarity as to who was in charge." The former director general was asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is a member of the Select Committee, whether I had forced the director general to remove Marriott that day. When asked by the hon. Gentleman:
"Did the Home Secretary tell you to make sure Mr. Marriott was off the premises by the afternoon?"
the former director general replied, "No he did not." [Hon. Members:-- "Oh".] Those are not my words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the words of the former director general.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): Mr. Lewis says that he was given a deadline by the right hon. and learned Gentleman by which to agree to the removal of Mr. Marriott, after which he would be overruled. Is that true?
Mr. Howard: There was no question of overruling the director general. He made the decisions that were made on that day. I now come to the events of 10 January, which so utterly fascinate the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Blackburn. To clarify matters, I am taking the exceptional step of releasing the official note of the discussions that took place that morning. I have placed a copy in the Library.
We met that day so that the former director general could advise me of the preliminary conclusions reached by Mr. Richard Tilt, who was then director of security and who had undertaken an urgent review of the escapes from Parkhurst, and to discuss my statement to the House.
Column 521
Mr. Lewis began by explaining that, in the light of the Tilt inquiry, he proposed to move the governor to other duties, pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. I asked why that action was being taken. Mr. Lewis explained that there were several grounds.It appeared that the governor had condoned, and possibly approved, the absence of a duty governor during the time that the prison was unlocked; he appeared not to be aware of the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the emergency control room, for which he had to bear a substantial, if not the main, responsibility; and there was confusion about whether he had fully implemented the recommendations made following Judge Tumim's inspection of the prison, on which assurances had been given to the director general and to Ministers.
The note goes on to record that I considered those to be serious charges and that I agreed with Mr. Lewis's analysis that Mr. Marriott could not stay as governor of Parkhurst. I asked, as I was perfectly entitled to, if it was right for him to be moved to other duties as distinct from being suspended from duty. Mr. Lewis explained why he thought that that would not be appropriate, and reaffirmed his decision not to suspend Mr. Marriott but to move him to another job elsewhere in the Prison Service.
I was entitled to be consulted by Mr. Lewis about that important matter, and I was. I was entitled to discuss the action that it was proposed to take, and I did. I was not entitled to give instructions: I did not. It was the director general who decided that the governor should be moved: he was.
The note that I have described, and which I have placed in the Library today, was addressed to Mr. Lewis. He had every opportunity to question, challenge or correct it; he did not do so. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that he accepted it as a fair record of the meeting.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. The minute, however, goes on to say that which the Home Secretary did not read out:
"The Home Secretary pointed out that this"
decision to move but not to suspend Mr. Marriott
"would almost inevitably be seen as a fudge, designed to enable Mr. Marriott not to be suspended."
Is not the truth of the matter that the Home Secretary disagreed with the decision of Mr. Lewis to move but not to suspend Mr. Marriott and that he sought to tell Mr. Lewis that Mr. Marriott should indeed be suspended, and is not that entirely consistent with those minutes?
Mr. Howard: I was entitled to be consulted, as I have repeatedly said, and I was. I was entitled, in the course of that consultation, to explore alternatives, as I did. But the decision was for the director general. He made it. He has made that clear time after time.
Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State now explain--which is admitted by the minute because it goes on to speak about later discussions- -why Mr. Lewis left the meeting, albeit while it was still going on? Is it not a fact that he left the meeting to consider the deadline that the Secretary of State had set him to reconsider his decision?
Mr. Howard: I have no idea, at this distance in time, why he left the meeting-- [Hon. Members:-- "Oh".]--but of course it is true that there was a deadline. I was making a statement to the House. There was nothing sinister about that. I had a duty to account to the House for what had
Column 522
happened. I took that duty seriously and, if I was to discharge that duty, it obviously had to be agreed what was going to be done in relation to Parkhurst.Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): May I press the Home Secretary further on that point? He is obviously a very busy man. He cannot even bother to respond to a letter from me dated 29 August on a very serious issue, about why he has applied for public interest immunity certificates--but that is another matter. On this case, will the Home Secretary think back, and ask himself, why did that adjournment take place? Why did it go on for so long? If he is so busy, in this difficult time that he is experiencing, why did he allow that adjournment to go on for so long? Is it not the case that he set a deadline?
Mr. Howard: I have just told the House that I had to make a statement to the House that afternoon, so of course there had to be a deadline by which it was agreed what would happen at Parkhurst and what I would say in my statement. Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with government will know that, if one is to make a statement to the House, there comes a time when one has to agree what is to be contained in it. It is not an astonishingly difficult proposition, even for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to grasp. Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Blackburn.
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State, whose--
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have all heard a dreadful speech from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Three times in the past two minutes, he has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions. Is not it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his own questions rather than have to put up a stooge to do it for him?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Howard: For the avoidance of doubt, may I--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not an addition to the ruling that I have just given.
Mr. Howard: I would not dream of doing that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, may I make it perfectly plain that I would be delighted to give way to the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Straw: The question-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was registered handicapped. I should be grateful if he would give his good arm a rest.
| Next Section
| Home Page |