Clause
14
Powers
of authorised persons to perform custodial duties and search
prisoners
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I waited to see whether the
Opposition spokesman would stand up, in which case I would not have
bothered. However, I am one of the members of the Committee who has
received two letters from the Prison Governors Association. I thought
that everybody had. [
Interruption.
] They say that
they have not. I want to ask the Minister whether he has had
discussions with the PGA about this provision, and I want him to
explain why he is not persuaded by its argument that this is a
dangerous move.
To
remind the Minister of the argument, if we approve clause 14, section
85(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 will be repealed. Section 85(3)
was introduced to prevent private justice being dispensed in private
prisons. It was seen as a safeguard that there would be a public sector
presence in such prisons to dish out the punishments, so that if people
were subject to punishment because of breaches of prison discipline,
such as an in-sentence punishment of days to be served, loss of licence
time, segregation, confinement in their cell or the use of mechanical
restraints, such matters would be deliberated on and pronounced by a
public sector representative called the controller. If we repeal that
provision today, we will be permitting the private sector to dish out
the punishment
instead.
The PGA,
which is not known for being a radical, publicly protesting body, has
said that it is particularly concerned, because it feels that, when
imposing a punishment in a prison, public accountability is an
important issue and that such a function should fall within the public
sector. The new provisions provide that there will be some monitoring
by a public servant, but it will be left to the prison to impose its
own punishments. I think that the PGA has introduced a good public
policy issue, and since no one else stood up to raise it, I decided to
do so.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising
this issue, which was brought to his attention by the PGA. I have a
great deal of respect for the PGAI have met its representatives
on a number of occasions, and I spoke at its annual conference last
yearand I hope that I am a friend of the PGA and in the same
way as I am a friend of the Prison Officers Association. We disagree
about things quite regularly, but we do so in a friendly
spirit.
There is a
subplot to the activities of the PGA. It is sad that none of the
private sector directors are eligible to become members of the PGA, and
I hope that it will remedy that. Although I have not met it about that
particular issue, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has provided
Members of Parliament with a suggested response to the
PGA.
On clause 14, we
are seeking to transfer to the directors of contracted-out
prisons
Mr.
Blunt:
I just want to elucidate that document, because I
do not recall getting that advice from the Home Secretary. I wonder
whether the Minister would like to make that document available. Is it
available only to Government Members, and can it be made available to
Opposition Members,
too?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemans
intervention. Apparently, I sent the letter .
[
Laughter.
] I assure the Committee that it is very
good.
Mr.
Garnier:
The Minister will know that Home Office Ministers
have difficulty in getting things to the Home Secretary; we now learn
that they have difficulty getting things from the Home Secretary, and
they have to make it up and say that letters from the Home Secretary
were actually written by them. We need to sort this
out.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I apologise to the Committee. I am the guilty
man in this case. To help the Committee, I will make available the
copies of the suggested response to the PGA from the Home Secretary to
MPs, which I passed on to the Home Secretary.
Let me help the Committee by
setting out what we are trying to do, which is to transfer to the
directors of contracted-out prisons certain powers
concerningthe segregation, control and, where appropriate,
disciplining of prisoners that are currently exercised by controllers
under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. All the powers that we propose to
transfer are existing ones that are seen as essential tools for
governors in the public sector to maintain order, control and
discipline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has said. The
powers are closely regulated by secondary legislation, such as the
prison rules, and detail the instructions that private prisons are
statutorily and contractually bound to follow. The instructions closely
reflect the rules that apply in public sector
prisons.
The power to
conduct adjudications, which are internal disciplinary hearings for
prisoners alleged to have broken prison rules, is a crucial control
mechanism for governors in the public sector. The proposed changes will
enable the directors of private prisons to be more responsible for the
order and control of their establishments. In addition, they will free
up controllers, who currently undertake that task on behalf of
directors, to spend more time monitoring the quality and value of the
services provided by the contractor. The changes will ensure that the
disciplinary system in private prisons operates as speedily and
effectively as possible, which will bring benefits to prisons and
prisoners generally.
A disciplinary offence that may
result in the award of additional days must be dealt with by an
independent adjudicator, whether in a public or private prison, rather
than by the governor or controller, as required
by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. This proposal
does nothing to alter that.
The powers of segregation and
control are currently available to directors in an emergency, for which
they must seek retrospective approval from the controller. The
amendment that the clause makes to the 1991 Act will enable such powers
to be exercised by the director acting alone, even when there is no
emergency. There is no evidence to suggest that directors have misused
the powers since the first private prison opened in 1992. Indeed,
private prisons have been credited with a key role in improving the
decency of prisoners treatment and conditions over the past 10
years in both sectors. I hope that with those safeguards, the
controller will have a wider role, notwithstanding my hon.
Friends comments about the effect of the provision in the
private
sector.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 14 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Mr.
Garnier:
On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson.
Before we finish, I would like to say that I am happier now that we
have corrected, as best we can, the transcript of the evidence session
that took place before the Committee started. I thank you for
explaining that procedure. I also thank Peter Butler in my right hon.
Friend the shadow Secretary of States office for working hard
on the transcript. It is imperfect, as there are one or two points at
which the evidence is inaudible, but we have endeavoured, in so far as
we can, to produce a readable document. I leave it to you,
Mr. Atkinson, to advise us how you would like to receive it
and what will happen to it
thereafter.
The
Chairman:
I shall come back to the hon. and learned
Gentleman after I have taken advice, as this is uncharted
territory.
Mr.
Blunt:
Further to that point of order, Mr.
Atkinson. Having had a conversation with a Clerk in the scrutiny unit
who already has an electronic copy of the transcript, I understand that
the Chairman has to authorise the publication of any evidence that is
submitted as part of a Committees documentation. I will submit
the transcript to you now, Mr. Atkinson, and you can then
have it admitted as evidence and published in time for our sitting on
Tuesday, if you and the Clerk are content that the procedures have been
followed.
The
Chairman:
I understand that that should be no
problem.
Further
consideration adjourned.[Mr. Alan
Campbell.]
Adjourned
accordingly at four minutes past Four oclock till Tuesday 23
January at half-past Ten
oclock.
|