APPENDIX 2
Memorandum by the Prison Governors Association
1. On 5 May 2000 Governors Eoin McLennan-Murray
(in charge) and David Newport were removed from their posts at
HMP Blantyre House. On 9 May 2000 Mr McLennan-Murray was told
that this had been prompted by some unspecified intelligence,
but the DG had personally reassured the Home Secretary of his
integrity. No one has brought into question Mr Newport's integrity.
2. On the night of 5 May substantial numbers
of staff from other prisons searched Blantyre House. Damage was
caused (see photographs*) in gaining access to locked rooms. It
was reported to the Press that a large amount of contraband was
found, and on 16 May 2000 the Director General told the Home Affairs
Committee of "the quite frightening amount of contraband
material we found".
3. After the search the Area manager, Tom
Murtagh, commissioned a Governor, Brian Pollett, to conduct a
disciplinary investigation solely into the management of Blantyre
House. The terms of reference were exhaustive (attached[4]),
but made no attempt to include an enquiry into why this scale
of search was necessary or to assess its outcome. The PGA formed
the view that this was the first step in justifying the search
and removing the Governor.
4. The PGA objected strongly to the investigation.
We believed that any fair inquiry into the Management at Blantyre
would have to examine the actions of the Area Manager as well
as the Governor, as it was clear there had been some conflict
of views. (This belief was later supported by the report of HMCIP,
25 July 2000). Additionally, Mr Pollett had been Mr McLennan-Murray's
immediate predecessor and had presided over the same regime. Mr
Pollett also was involved in the search.
5. The Director General gave the investigation
to an Area Manager to conduct. However, the terms of reference
were not broadened to examine Mr Murtagh's role in events, and
Mr Pollett was left on the investigation team. The PGA were told
by Mr Narey that the investigation was not a disciplinary one
and that Mr McLennan-Murray would have the opportunity to comment
on emergent findings.
6. The investigation was a disciplinary
one and Mr McLennan-Murray had no opportunity to comment on emerging
findings.
7. On sight of HMCIP's report into Blantyre,
praising "the consistent, innovative and courageous approach
of the Governor", the PGA decided that the Prison Service
would not conduct a full and impartial inquiry into these matters
and asked the Home Affairs Committee to investigate what happened
at Blantyre.
8. This is uncharted territory for the PGA.
However, the removal from post of PGA members without a reasonable
explanation is unacceptable to us. It is also unprecedented to
launch this scale of search based on information not communicated
at any time to the Governor. We do not question the Director General's
authority to appoint and remove Governors, but such measures must
be undertaken with reasonableness. We have come under strong attack
from the Director General, the Deputy Director General and the
Area Manager for our actions.
9. We had no alternative. We are not a trade
union which can or would take industrial action and we have no
disputes resolution procedure in place. We question how far the
intelligence justified the Director General's actions and whether
our members, formerly at Blantyre have been fairly treated.
10. According to information gleaned from
the prison since the search, some of the statements made by Paul
Boateng and Martin Narey to the HAC on 16 May 2000 are challengeable.
Sections 11 to 13 refer.
11. Remarkably little was found.
Mandatory drug test of all prisoners
No prisoners tested positive. One prisoner could
not provide a sample having recently urinated. He tested negative
later in the evening. Only a laboratory test can show whether
a sample has been diluted. None were conducted.
Drugs
Three white tablets of unknown substance were
found. One prisoner was charged with possessing cannabis: charge
dismissed.
Credit Cards
These were in the main debit cards, authorised
by the Governor and held by working prisoners. There is no rule
to prevent a prisoner having a credit card account.
Large quantities of money
£130 of this was the Chaplain's and taken
from his office. We think about £40 in total, comprising
of small amounts, was found.
12. It has been stated that there is an
ongoing criminal investigation into matters stemming from the
search. Prison Service Police Advisors have told us that there
is not.
13. It has also been stated that intelligence
over a period of time was discussed at length with the Governor.
It was not. Indeed, even after Mr McLennan-Murray's removal he
was not told what this intelligence was. Following an escape from
Brixton in 1990, the then Home Secretary gave a commitment that
covert operations in prisons would not take place without the
knowledge of the Governor.
14. If there was no police intelligence
then perhaps such intelligence came from the Area Manager's "Chaucer"
Investigation team. This comprises a small number of staff who
are not detectives or trained (at the time) to be detectives.
Extra staff are seconded for specific purposes and they often
operate clandestinely, using code names (eg "Pegasus").
If staff are under surveillance or suspicion they are unaware
of this.
15. "Chaucer's" intelligence cannot
be challenged. If it was their intelligence that led to the Governor's
removal and the search, then the result of the search must have
severely disappointed them. No evidence of criminal wrongdoing
has led to criminal charges.
16. "Chaucer" also planned and
supervised the search, codenamed "Operation Swinford".
The planning notes, now in our possession, contain a drafted statement
designed to convince prisoners that the new Governor in fact requested
the search. The wording was drawn up on 3 or 4 May at meetings
involving Mr Murtagh, Mr J P (Chaucer) Mr B P (Chaucer) Mr C Bartlett
(new Governor) and Mr R G (Chaucer).
17. The search caused considerable damage.
Had the searchers asked the Orderly Officer for keys, she would
have provided them. The Director General originally told you that
the cost of the damage was £400. Eventually the PGA prompted
a non-disciplinary investigation into the search. The findings
have not been disclosed. However, the photographs we provide speak
for themselves. We believe the real total cost to be nearer to
£5,000, in accordance with the clarification later provided
by the Prison Service.
18. Blantyre House had an unusual regime.
No comprehensive national guidelines exist for resettlement prisons,
and the provisions of the Security manual which apply to ordinary
category C prisons are difficult or impossible to apply within
existing resources.
19. Few men resettle on release near Blantyre.
The Governor wanted men to find quality jobs before release, which
they could keep afterwards. Many would settle in London, hence
their work placements may be some distance away. The DG has expressed
concern at this, but Latchmere House sends men to within the M25
area, and Kirklevington also sends men similar distances to the
Blantyre prisoners.
20. There should be national standards.
Governors of resettlement prisons manage risk, and cannot be entirely
risk averse. Mr McLennan-Murray governed long term prisoners who
returned a 0.7 per cent drugs test failure rate and a reconviction
rate of 8 per cent. He deserved support for these remarkable achievements,
not the destruction of his reputation.
21. Since the search there has been one
escape and four licence failures in four months. Mr McLennan-Murray
had no escapes in two and a half years and two failures out of
over 16,000 releases per year.
22. We are aware that others have advised
you of regime restrictions since 5 May 2000.
23. Mr McLennan-Murray is not naive or a
"soft touch". He was quick to punish violence, alcohol
consumption and drug use with immediate removal from Blantyre.
24. The best way to ensure that we serve
the country, by preventing escape and ending criminal behaviour,
is for Governors to be supported. This includes being party to
all intelligence which might affect the security or stability
of their establishments. This did not happen at Blantyre.
25. The Prison Governors Association has
in its membership all of the principal actors in this story. Some
have spoken to us in private. We have spoken publicly with reluctance.
However, many members have expressed their extreme disquiet to
us at these events. You are entitled to a clear explanation of
what happened. The public humiliation of our members, the cost
of the damage, the staff costs of the search (£7,500) and
the damage done to Blantyre's reputation make this a serious matter.
We seek to know whether the Director General's actions were proportionate
and reasonable.
5 October 2000
4 Not printed. Back
| 
