Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
WEDNESDAY 18 OCTOBER 2000
MR MIKE
NEWELL, MR
DAVID RODDAN
AND MR
EOIN MCLENNAN-MURRAY
340. Do you see kindred spirits elsewhere in
the Prison Service who would subscribe to your philosophy and
what you achieve?
(Mr McLennan-Murray) Many, many governors believe
that people can change and do change.
Mr Howarth: David Roddan is nodding.
Chairman
341. Could you just let us know, Mr McLennan-Murray,
what project you are actually engaged in at the moment? I seem
to remember you did not take up this career move thrust upon you?
(Mr McLennan-Murray) I am pleased to say that that
was reviewed and a decision was taken that it was not a suitable
career move. I was offered a secondment with the Department for
Education and Employment, a very exciting position, which I was
looking forward to starting. There has been a delay in that, partly
because of these proceedings, and that has been deferred until
these matters have been finalised. I hope then to take up that
appointment. I have just begun to give some assistance to the
Education Services in the Prison Service and I will be going up
there on odd days in the coming weeks until I take up this new
appointment.
Mr Stinchcombe
342. Just a couple of matters of clarification
as to what lessons you feel we should learn from this operation:
firstly, in respect of the way in which the Governor was replaced,
secondly the way in which the service itself was conducted, and
thirdly in respect of what we learned from the outcomes of that
search. Is it appropriate, do you believe, to have removed the
Governor in this way? Should a different procedure be followed
in similar circumstances in the future?
(Mr Newell) Absolutely. A different procedure should
be followed. If there are performance issues—we are not
suggesting, I do not think Eoin would, there were not things in
performance where the Area Manager had the right to say, "You
need to improve that"—there are procedures for dealing
with those, covered by handbooks and covered by a whole series
of personnel documents. They should have been followed. There
should have been an exchange in writing when it was clear what
the targets and improvements that were required were. There should
have been appropriate resources provided to deliver that. There
should have been a monitoring process. People should have been
aware of the outcome. These sorts of removals do nothing for the
morale of the service, for the individuals concerned, and bring
no credit on the personnel system in the Prison Service.
343. Can I then move on to the way the search
was conducted and what led up to that? Are there lessons to be
learned about the sharing of intelligence with the governor?
(Mr Newell) I can see no case, other than where the
governor is being himself investigated for matters, where intelligence
is not shared. It is the duty that that is shared. What has led
to these circumstances and what the reason is that the intelligence
could not be shared are still, to this day, not known to the Association.
We do have to reaffirm that principle. Management of an institution
is a complex task. A whole series of decisions about responding
to intelligence are required to be taken into account at local
level. It is particularly important that anything that has to
be done in an establishment has a delicate ethos and is done in
a way that delivers the objectives of the search without damaging
the establishment and the relationships. Security searches do
have to go on in every type of establishment. This one seemed
completely disproportionate. The briefing to the search team as
to what they were looking for is not clear. If they were looking
for contraband this is a highly inappropriate way to go about
it.
344. In which way is it inappropriate?
(Mr Newell) Contraband is not the sort of thing that
we would mount a search of this nature for, it is too risky. Basically
you are putting a lot of people into a potential conflict situation.
We would only do it where the threat—
Chairman
345. What are you saying, there could have been
a riot?
(Mr Newell) That is not impossible. If you put a large
number of people into that situation, particularly in an establishment
where the security is low, the physical protection to the people
who go in there is low.
Mr Stinchcombe
346. Can I ask a few more questions on that?
Is there any justification for sledge-hammering doors down when
keys are available?
(Mr Newell) No.
347. Is there any sense in making insecure a
health area where there are drugs, and then not making it secure
again?
(Mr Newell) No.
348. If I can ask you in respect of the third
area, what can we learn from the outcomes? We know that there
was a very minor amount of drugs found. We know that there was
some money found. We know that there were certain other artifacts
found, such as mobile phones, credit cards or whatever. Given
the nature of this establishment, do the outcomes justify the
search?
(Mr Newell) In no way. As I mentioned, you would not
risk that damage for contraband. The sort of circumstances that
I can think of for that type of search are basically for firearms
and threats to national security or the security of individuals,
not for mobile phones and credit cards.
349. You would have to have intelligence or
information that there was that kind of artifact to be found,
that would justify a search on that scale?
(Mr Newell) You would have to have some indication
that there were firearms, or other matters which presented a real
threat. If you had intelligence about contraband for an individual,
you would do an individual search in the normal way, you would
target that individual.
350. Is it surprising there were some locked
doors and some locked cupboards that were ignored during the search?
(Mr Newell) Yes. There are clear procedures for those
in charge of a search to conduct what we call an area search.
That is a wide-ranging search.
Mr Stinchcombe: Thank you very much.
Mr Linton
351. I want to come to the question of the way
in which the Prison Service conducts inquiries at places like
this. I am sure you will recall the sequence of events. The search
was conducted on 5th May, we saw the Minister of State and the
Director General on 16th May, they promised us a full account.
It was not until the latter part of July, when we met again to
consider this, that in a period of two days, miraculously, a Report
was commissioned on the internal management of Blantyre House
and the search on 24th July. Sir David's Report was finally published
six months after it was submitted, on 26th July. I do not know
whether you have seen this Report that came out on the internal
management of Blantyre House. I just really want to ask you, and
indeed Mr McLennan-Murray, to what extent this Report has been
conducted with sufficient independence in order to really shed
light on what happened?
(Mr Roddan) This has really been our difficulty right
from the outset. We knew that so many people were involved in
the events at various levels and we had a very strong view that
it had to be investigated at a very senior level. It had to be
investigated by somebody who was detached from the events. Neither
of the people involved in the investigation could be completely
detached from the events. Mr Pollett, for example, the junior
investigating officer was Mr McLennan-Murray's predecessor, who
was a subordinate to Mr Murtagh. Mr Smith, the area manager investigating
it, had previously been the Governor of Elmley, who had been involved
in sending prisoners to Blantyre House. That makes it difficult
to examine the selection procedure, and so on and so forth. When
Sir David published his Report we were left, really, with no alternative
than to ask your good selves to look into this. It was clear to
us that the Prison Service could not or would not widen this scope
of the investigation to include everybody involved in the management
of Blantyre House, not just the Governor downwards. I will just
make a brief aside here, just to remind everyone listening, it
was not just the Governor, there was another Governor as well.
I have to be slightly careful because the people who wrote that
Report are also members of our Association, as, indeed, is the
Area Manager for Kent. I find it difficult to marry some of their
observations about volumetric control being okay, which would
surprise me in a resettlement prison, I think.
Chairman
352. What does that mean, Mr Roddan?
(Mr Roddan) Volumetric control, allowing prisoners
to have a certain amount of property that can fit into a certain
size container. I find it difficult to marry some of the observations
and findings with their conclusions. You will know from your own
rules that we cannot touch on in any detail disciplinary matters,
suffice it to say that from our point of view they are relatively
minor, nothing to do with dishonesty, and, in any case, would
be strongly challenged. Was it the kind of report we would expect
from an external inspector? No.
Mr Linton
353. To be specific about that, the Report is
by a fellow area manager of the area manager's and by a subordinate.
In no sense is it somebody in a senior position to the area manager?
(Mr Roddan) Correct. I want to stress, we are not
impugning the integrity of Mr Smith or Mr Pollett. I think they
were given a hugely difficult task to accomplish.
354. It was difficult for them to be entirely
independent about what they were investigating.
(Mr Roddan) The other issue is that Mr Smith ended
up investigating Mr McLennan-Murray on matters which were referring
to an investigation Mr Smith carried out in 1998.
355. Can I ask you to comment on one particular
finding of the Report? It is dealing with the problem that this
night time search by 86 staff into a prison, that was supposedly
awash with drugs, found that there was not a single prisoner who,
having been drug tested, came up positive. The amount of drugs
they discovered was negligible. It then says, "The argument
often put forward is, because nothing has been found to have gone
wrong, or no more that one would expect, does not hold water.
There have been serious difficulties at Blantyre House in the
past six years", this is the bit I wanted to point out, "we
are sure that it is likely that there have been ones of which
we are not aware".
(Mr Roddan) That is an entirely unsustainable comment.
That kind of comment defies a response.
356. That was the reaction we had when we read
it. Do you have any comments? Do not feel obliged.
(Mr McLennan-Murray) I just happened to highlight
that very passage that you have just read as the thing which typified
the Report to me.
357. It does remind me of that famous book Catch
22.
(Mr Roddan) We live that all of the time.
358. I want to ask one further question, which
is much broader, and particularly aimed at Mr Newell, the Association
really. What effect do you think the events of Blantyre House
will have on the ability of the Prison Service to recruit and,
indeed, retain able governors?
(Mr Newell) I think there are some issues about this.
I do not think it is any secret that they could not get a governor
for Birmingham when Birmingham became vacant, the current governor
suffering ill-health from the pressures. I think it is significant
that they went outside the Service to get a governor for Brixton.
I have heard rumours that they may be going outside the Service
to get a governor for Feltham. There are issues which say that
the reputation of the way senior people are treated in the Service
at the moment is such that it may not be the wisest career choice.
We do not say that the remuneration is bad, but it is not where
you would go, bearing in mind the pressures.
Mr Winnick
359. Can I ask you if you have the impression
that there has been a whitewash as far as the Government is concerned,
or ministers, in giving Parliamentary answers on events at Blantyre
House?
(Mr Newell) I think one of the difficulties with this
is where certain information was known and not known, and who
was briefing what. I would not like to think that anyone was accused
of misleading if they were actually telling what they had been
told. That is not misleading, that is passing on. The question
is the quality of the briefing and the research that may take
place before that. If you take the example of the intelligence,
if I say, or if somebody comes up to me and gives me a piece of
intelligence—the classic that happens to a prison governor
is the note in the box that says, "There is a gun in the
prison"—I cannot ignore that piece of intelligence,
but I do not start tearing the prison apart on the basis of that
piece of intelligence. I begin to try and get some quality assessment
on that intelligence before I take action. In this particular
case our understanding is, at this moment, is that there was no
criminal intelligence. There was intelligence from the Chaucer
team that has been mentioned. If that information is passed on
in a way that we end up with "send three and four pence,
we are going to the dance" type information and that is what
is passed to ministers, then it is not good practice. It does
not necessarily mean to say that it is misleading intentionally.
Chairman: Thank you.
|
