---

19 Jun 2003 : Column 13WS

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 19 June 2003

HOME DEPARTMENT

Yarl's Wood Inquiry

The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): In a statement on 25 February following the disturbance at Yarl's Wood removal centre on 14/15 February, the Home Secretary indicated that Stephen Moore, a member of the Prison Service, would conduct an over-arching investigation of the events. He has made significant progress with this investigation, but it cannot be completed until any associated court proceedings have concluded. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, has provided an independent overview of the work done so far.

In view of the interest which has been shown in the events at Yarl's Wood, I have concluded that it would be preferable for the outcome of the investigation to be fully independent, and have therefore asked Stephen Shaw to take overall responsibility for the investigation (with the same terms of reference) and bring it to a conclusion. He will submit his report to the Head of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in due course. I am grateful to Mr Moore for his important contribution to the investigation thus far.

HMP Woodhill

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The report of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the act of self-harm by Ian Huntley was received by the Prison Service on Friday 13 June. I received that report together with the Prison Service's response to it in my office on Tuesday 17 June. Whilst the investigation report itself is, for a variety of reasons, confidential, I am providing this statement because I want Parliament and the public to have confidence that this matter has been properly dealt with. I have been mindful of the Attorney General's guidance concerning the publication of matters relating to Mr Huntley prior to his trial, to matters of security and medical confidentiality.

The report highlights a number of serious systems failures. I can confirm that these have already been addressed and corrected. In essence the systems for managing Ian Huntley concentrated more on protecting him from other prisoners than on the risk of self-harm. The Prison Service should have given equal importance to both risks. The report also highlighted the risks in managing a single prisoner in special conditions for a protracted period. The arrangements for briefing staff supervising Mr Huntley and the arrangements for overall management oversight were not robust enough to combat complacency and conditioning. Finally, the

19 Jun 2003 : Column 14WS

procedures for dispensing medication to Mr Huntley fell well short of acceptable standards and failed to take into account the risk of self-harm.

The report acknowledges the complex multifunctional role of Woodhill Prison and the challenge this poses to managers and staff but I have made it clear that the safe custody of Mr Huntley is an absolute priority for the Prison Service and that revised arrangements for his supervision must reflect this. The report concludes that lines of accountability for the management of Mr Huntley were unclear. I have made it clear to the Director General that there must be clear lines of accountability in the future so that all staff are fully aware of their responsibilities and that management oversight is to a consistently high standard. The report did not recommend that any disciplinary action be taken against individual officers.

The Investigating Officer concluded that:

Any failures were corporate failures and not the failure of any one individual.


The management arrangements for Mr Huntley lacked clarity, were not communicated well and failed to respond effectively to the developing needs of the circumstances.


The day-to-day management of this situation had effectively become the responsibility of one manager who had a wide range of other responsibilities. This was not appropriate.


There were failings in communication and input from senior managers.


There were deficiencies in searching practices, which were predictable and did not include the items stored outside of his cell.


The management of staff deployed to carry out the task of supervision of Mr Huntley did not fully recognise the full risks inherent in working long shifts without relief.


Information was not systematically reviewed. There was a time lapse in some cases between information being submitted and consideration being given to that information.


Staff must have the appropriate resources, instructions and support to enable them to remain vigilant at all times they are carrying out this duty.

The recommendations of the Investigating Officer include:

One operational Manager should have responsibility for the care of Mr Huntley.


A clear and effective structure for the management of Mr Huntley must be established and published to staff.


A multi disciplinary team should review the current operational instruction. An amended instruction must be authorised by the Governor.


The amended operational instruction must be communicated to all staff who have contact with Mr Huntley. The implications of the new instruction should be communicated to Mr Huntley.


A multi disciplinary team should meet weekly to review the management of Mr Huntley.


Staff still in their probationary period should not supervise Mr Huntley.


All recommendations made by Prison Service Safer Custody Group should be actioned.

19 Jun 2003 : Column 15WS

The searching strategy should be reviewed. There should be management oversight of the reviewed strategy.


A review of security intelligence systems, including use of CCTV, at Woodhill should be carried out by an independent person.


All recommendations made in relation to medical issues should be implemented.


There should be an audit of prescribing practice after three months.


Staff should be reminded of their personal responsibilities in relation to the supervision of prisoners.


The findings of the significant event audit should be circulated to Health Care staff who should be engaged in resolving issues raised and implementing change.


There should be an audit of compliance with the administration of medication policy after three months.


There must be a specific Integrated Care Plan for Mr Huntley, which should record all issues relating to him. This document should be reviewed daily and submitted to the Governor weekly.

The Prison Service has advised me that all the recommendations in the report have been accepted and have been implemented with effect from Monday 16 June. Revised and comprehensive operational instructions have been put in place that will be overseen by a clearly identified manager at all times who will report direct to the Governor. The instructions are underpinned by an integrated care plan in which comprehensive written details of all events concerning Mr Huntley will be recorded. This plan will be reviewed daily. Medical procedures have also been reviewed in consultation with the appropriate Primary Care Trust and a multi-disciplinary team will supervise Mr Huntley's health care. The effectiveness of these revised procedures will be formally reviewed each week by the accountable manager together with those other managers who have designated responsibilities laid down in the operational instructions. The Governor will supervise their work. The Prison Service will also make arrangements for regular audits of the operational instructions to be carried out independently of the establishment to provide assurance that full compliance with the instructions is being maintained. Audit reports will be sent to the Deputy Director General for his personal attention.

I have made it clear to the Director General that the conclusions of the report describe a completely unacceptable situation, that the lessons to be learned must be applied immediately and that the highest standards of supervision must be sustained from now on.

Proceeds of Crime Act

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I am pleased to announce that the first annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been laid before Parliament. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the new search power introduced to support the scheme to seize and forfeit criminal cash.

19 Jun 2003 : Column 16WS

The report gives the appointed person's opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Andrew Clarke, has expressed satisfaction at the operation of the search power in its first three months.

Over £12½ million had been seized under the scheme by the end of March. While most of the cash was discovered when police and customs officers were conducting searches under other legislation, it is significant and very good news that over £2 million was found and seized as a direct result of this new search power. The power is a welcome addition in the fight against crime and the report shows that its operation has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Supporting People Programme

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): The Supporting People Programme aims to improve the quality of life of vulnerable people by supporting them to live independently in the community. On 19 February my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) announced the total provisional amounts of Supporting People Grant. At that point I announced that as part of this we had made a provisional allocation for services in the pipeline, which are currently incurring capital spend, and which require revenue funding once the buildings are completed. These allocations were subject to confirmation of progress, including amounts.

I have today confirmed the amounts allocated to each authority in respect of pipeline services. These amount to some £29m in this year and £52m in next. Careful consideration has been given to ensure that pipeline funding is focused on services which have reached an advanced stage of capital commitment. We have also taken a view on the level of funding requested, and in certain cases allocated a reasonable level of funding based on the overall pattern of costs for similar services regionally. We have also taken into account the fact that Supported Housing Management Grant previously awarded by the Housing Corporation will be available to some of the services. Authorities, in conjunction with their provider partners, must now decide how to make best use of these funds.

The programme is now entering the phase of review and quality assurance. Final allocations for 2003–04, and allocations for 2004–05 will be announced in the autumn following the final reconciliation of Supporting People costs with the previous funding sources.

Amongst the funded pipeline services are many innovative examples of new services to deliver high quality services to vulnerable people, and enable them to live more independently. This confirms the potential of the Supporting People programme to make a real difference in helping vulnerable people to live as part of their local community, and its key role in preventing the need for more crisis and institutional care.

19 Jun 2003 : Column 17WS

---