| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The President of the Council was asked--
Early-Day Motions
41. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the current procedures for early-day motions. [87241]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): As part of the preparation for the weekly business statement I, together with the President
of the Council, review recent early-day motions. I have not made a wider assessment of the effectiveness of that procedure.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that answer. Although many of our constituents do not entirely understand the status of early-day motions as a form of licensed parliamentary graffiti, and setting aside those hon. Members who simply want to curry favour with their local football teams, is there not a case for early-day motions that attract substantial support from hon. Members having some mechanism by which they can be debated in the Chamber, because they clearly represent a body of Back-Bench concern?
Mr. Tipping: I am not sure whether I entirely agree with that point, although I accept the need for more opportunities for Back-Bench debate. I look forward to the Westminster Hall Committee experiment in the autumn, when hon. Members will have the opportunity to press and raise local and regional issues.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Although I share the view of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that early-day motions are an important means by which to express opinion and concern about a range of issues, does the Minister agree that, at least in one area of public policy, they are used--and, I venture to suggest, have been for some years--simply because it is now 14 years and 100 days since the last Question Time was exclusively devoted to European Union matters? In view of the important fact that we have since had three EU treaties that impact on this country, will the Government seriously consider the reinstitution of that important means by which the legislature can hold the Executive to account?
Mr. Tipping: Early-day motions can be an opportunity to raise European issues. The hon. Gentleman will know, if he checks the record, that in May the European Union and Europe were mentioned on 207 occasions in the Chamber. I know that he took a passing interest in that.
Wormwood Scrubs
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the report of an inspection of Her Majesty's Prison Wormwood Scrubs which the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, is publishing today. Copies have been made available in the Library and the Vote Office. Given its serious nature, I thought that I should report to the House the failings exposed by the report at the prison and the urgent remedial action that I expect to see taken.
Before coming to the report itself, let me first deal with the question of the prosecution of certain prison officers. On 15 June, after a detailed police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that 25 prison officers from Wormwood Scrubs were to be charged with offences of assault on prisoners. The House will understand that I am therefore unable to comment on those allegations today, but there can be no place in the Prison Service for any abuse of prisoners. That is a fundamental principle. The Government and the new Director General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, will take whatever steps are required to maintain it.
Let me now come to the report itself. The chief inspector of prisons undertook an unannounced full inspection of Wormwood Scrubs from 8 to 12 March 1999. The report of his inspection, published today, makes deeply disturbing reading. In his preface, Sir David recalls that he had already been highly critical of what he had found when he last visited the prison in 1996. In that earlier report, he made a large number of recommendations and called for a determined Prison Service response to reform the prison. However, on his return in March, Sir David found that that reform had not occurred. While individual staff were carrying out excellent work, in what Sir David said were extremely difficult circumstances, he considered that overall the treatment of prisoners remained "profoundly unsatisfactory".
In his report, Sir David sets out a number of specific failings: the needs of prisoners appeared to be inadequately understood; there were examples of the statutory rights of prisoners being denied; induction procedures were poor; prisoners spent too long in their cells; regimes were inconsistent and impoverished; health care had been cut back; there were allegations of abuse, including racial abuse; and arrangements for the discharge of prisoners were not systematic.
Sir David found a destructive, unco-operative, and self-seeking attitude among a minority of staff which had been very difficult for managers to combat. Those are serious criticisms and Sir David makes a large number of recommendations for improvement. I have asked the new director general, Martin Narey, to put in place a robust action plan to respond to them. He is to report to me within 30 days. I expect the overwhelming majority of the recommendations to be accepted and implemented.
There is one significant exception--Sir David recommends that Wormwood Scrubs should be market tested. I am keeping that option open but there are new managers in place at every level of the Prison Service responsible for Wormwood Scrubs and in my view they should be allowed an opportunity to put the prison back
on an even keel. However, should rapid progress not be made in reforming Wormwood Scrubs, all options--including market testing or the closure of the prison--are open.
I shall now tell the House of the changes already under way. Those include a thorough overhaul of the procedures of the segregation unit; improved prisoner complaint procedures; more efficient deployment of staff; expansion of the regimes of the prison, including additional offending behaviour programmes, increased constructive activities and a new education contract; a restructuring of health care management; and finalising and implementing an effective drugs strategy.
The report points out that, at the time of the inspection, 46 per cent. of prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs came from the ethnic minorities, compared with 11 per cent. of staff. The chief inspector makes six recommendations relating to race relations, and I accept them all. In addition, as the House knows, the Government are setting the Prison Service overall challenging targets for the recruitment, retention and promotion of ethnic minority staff. That reflects our commitment to eradicating racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.
All those, however, remain small beginnings, and much is still at a planning stage. What I require is a radical overhaul of Wormwood Scrubs, its culture and its working practices. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of prison officers will welcome the improvements that the Prison Service needs to implement at the prison. I expect the Prison Officers Association, both nationally and locally, to work constructively with the service to secure reform.
The senior POA official who, a few days ago, publicly described prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs as
I have, however, made it absolutely clear to the director general that change must be delivered at Wormwood Scrubs. I very much hope that that will be done with the full support and co-operation of the staff at Wormwood Scrubs and of all Prison Service trade unions, including the POA--but there will be change, either with or without that co-operation. Wormwood Scrubs has the staff and the resources to meet the challenges laid down by the chief inspector. To ensure progress, I have asked Sir David and his team to conduct a further inspection of the prison in six months' time, the result of which will, of course, be reported to the House.
I am determined to ensure that we have a Prison Service that both protects the public and provides a secure and decent environment for staff and for prisoners.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald):
Again, I thank the Home Secretary for allowing me early sight of his statement and for the prompt delivery of the report. It makes a change from the standards to which I have been used over the past year.
The Opposition support the Home Secretary's decision not to close Wormwood Scrubs. Given the pressure on the London Prison Service, we believe that that would have
been long on drama and short on common sense. On the question of market testing, I accept that as it would involve decanting, and given the present numbers in prisons, it could be impractical. Nevertheless, given the chief inspector's recommendations in paragraphs 17 and 18, can the Home Secretary tell us about his overall plans for market testing?
In his report in 1997, the chief inspector detailed a large number of remedial measures that needed to be taken, and which he says in his current report have been virtually ignored. To whom does the Home Secretary attribute responsibility for the failure to take such action over the past two years? I am sure that he will accept that, while the House is grateful for his assurances about the future, it needs far more detail about what has been going on since the last report, and, in particular, what action has been taken by Ministers, by the then director general, by the area manager and by the governor to implement the recommendations.
Can the Home Secretary tell the House why the prison was left without a governor for six months? Can he also help us with a passage in paragraph 4 of the report? The chief inspector says that
What did the Home Secretary do when he received those allegations? Will he put on record the number of complaints of assault on prisoners by members of staff that have been made since the report of March 1997? How many of those complainants asked to see the governor? Is he satisfied that normal procedures were followed? What specific steps were taken to implement the Prison Service's anti-bullying strategy at Wormwood Scrubs?
How many inspections or visits have been carried out since May 1997--other than the one now under report--by the former director general, Ministers and the area manager? How many of those visits, if any, were unannounced? Has the Home Secretary visited Wormwood Scrubs since his appointment? Since the specific allegations of violence were made, has he asked for and received regular reports from the director general on the state of affairs at Wormwood Scrubs? In his regular meetings with the director general, has Wormwood Scrubs been specifically and regularly discussed?
In 1997, the chief inspector's report criticised, among myriad other things, the failure to introduce a personal officer scheme, the failure of the regime over and above the basics, and the absence of sentence planning, which he described as "non-existent". Particular criticism was levelled at the use of special cells and restraints. What remedial action was taken specifically on those points?
When the allegations of violence were first made, was the prison designated as in need of special managerial attention by the Prison Service, and if not, why not? If it was, how could so much have gone unattended to for so long?
"the scum of the earth"
has now expressed bitter regret for his gratuitously offensive remarks. Last week, the national chairman of the POA gave the director general a categorical assurance that his members would work with the governor and senior Prison Service managers to transform Wormwood Scrubs. I welcome that assurance.
"the prison was left for six months without a nominated successor, during which time the first specific allegations of brutality were handed to me by a solicitor, and by me to the Home Secretary."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |