|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 209-iv HOUSE OF LORDS House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEATHS IN CUSTODY
Monday 1 March 2004 PAUL GOGGINS MP, MR NIGEL HANCOCK, MR BRIAN POLLETT and MR JOHN WOODCOCK Evidence heard in Public Questions 239 - 321
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Monday 1 March 2004 Members present: Jean Corston, in the Chair
Witnesses: Paul Goggins, a Member of the House of Commons, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Correctional Services; Mr Nigel Hancock, Head of Safer Custody Group, Prison Service; Mr Brian Pollett, Director of Detention Services, Immigration Services, and Mr John Woodcock, Head of Police Powers and Procedures Team, Police Leadership and Powers Unit, examined. Q239 Chairman: Welcome, Minister, to this meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is a pleasure to see you and your colleagues whom, no doubt, you will introduce shortly. The Committee embarked earlier this year on an inquiry into deaths in custody: we have a large amount of written evidence and have started our oral evidence into a subject which not only from time to time is very much in the public domain but which, in a sense, has a sharper focus since the passing of the Human Rights Act and now the obligation is on public authorities under Article 2 which is to preserve the right to life, an obligation which obviously falls very heavily on people responsible for prison and forms of detention, and on the State. Would you like first of all to introduce your colleagues? Paul Goggins: I would but, just before I do, might I fully endorse the remarks you have just made. Certainly I hope the views you will hear from me this afternoon will reflect that same level of importance in terms of the views and policies of the Home Office. I have with me Nigel Hancock, who works for the Safer Custody Group in the Prison Service, Brian Pollett, who is from IND, and also John Woodcock, who is from the Police Leadership and Powers Unit. Q240 Chairman: Thank you. Starting with deaths in police custody, and following on from what I said just now about the Article 2 obligation on the State, would you agree that it is often seen that such deaths go unpunished, and you could put it at its kindest and say they are unnecessary but you could say they are unlawful. To what degree do you think that damages relations between the police and the communities? Paul Goggins: You use the word "unpunished": it is possible that with some deaths which are associated with the police, whether directly in the custody of the police or in other contact with the police, nothing has gone wrong and maybe there has been some natural cause. What matters is that each and every death where somebody is in contact with the police is thoroughly investigated, so that we find out, if there is fault, that that fault is addressed and the people responsible are dealt with, but always it is the responsibility of the State to make sure we know precisely what happened and why. Q241 Chairman: Where would you say that the Home Office sees the most intractable difficulties with regard to deaths in custody? Is it during arrest or in custody suites? Paul Goggins: Clearly both those situations can be extremely difficult and challenging. The police are often first on the scene: they may have to intervene in a crisis in some quite unexpected and uncontrolled circumstances: and they must react, and react professionally, of course. That is why training is of the absolute utmost priority, and the police certainly take their lead from ACPO's personal safety manual of guidance which gives a very clear indicator of the kind of way in which the police, and particularly custody officers, are expected to behave. It sets out very clearly what best practice is, and does, indeed, adopt a human rights approach to that training. It makes clear, for example, that it would never be allowed for somebody to be held in a neck hold. It is very clear on those kinds of points but I think it is as important as anything to develop a culture in which not only would the police do their job - the investigation and apprehension of people - but they would do it a way that shows due respect for the individual. Q242 Chairman: Are the ACPO codes guidelines or are they mandatory? To what degree is any effort made to see whether constabularies do enforce and follow them? Paul Goggins: The document I just referred to is guidance. Of course, it is very strong guidance but when it comes to implementation, because of the way that our police system is structured, it remains for the local chief constable and the local force to give effect to that guidance. The Home Office issues, for example, guidance in relation to health care standards, and ACPO has issued other guidance too. That is not to say we ignore the impact of that guidance; we take it very seriously indeed, and again training is at the heart of that but our system of policing is such that, whilst we issue policy guidance from the centre, it is for the local police force to implement that. Q243 Chairman: I appreciate that. I just wondered if any work was done to establish whether, in fact, the guidance was being followed at local level? Mr Woodcock: Certainly it is important for us to try and have as much confidence as we can that guidance is being followed. As you rightly say, the specific guidance on restraint is ACPO guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers, and clearly they have a role in seeking to ensure that forces are following the guidance. Looking at the Home Office's role in relation to this, we do not conduct specific checks or surveys to verify for every force that they are following that guidance in detail. As the Minister said, that to some extent reflects our constitutional relationship with police forces with them having primary operational responsibility, but we are working increasingly closely with ACPO across the whole range of custody issues to try and ensure that best practice is applied as widely as possible. The Committee suspended from 4.50 pm to 5.00 pm for a division in the House of Commons. Q244 Lord Judd: I must say I was very interested to hear your point about culture which I am sure is terribly important but, in the context of that culture, control and restraint is obviously a contentious and difficult issue. Do you feel from your position and experience that control and restraint are being used by the police proportionately? Do you think that due consideration is being given wherever it should be to the human rights of those being constrained, or controlled? Paul Goggins: The approach which I was describing before about human rights being built into the training and the guidance which ACPO have given I would want to underline again in beginning my answer to this particular question. Restraint is obviously a very important issue and it is worth noting that, over the past four years, only six of the deaths that have occurred in contact with the police have been where restraint was a primary factor, so it is worth putting that into some kind of perspective. Q245 Lord Judd: But that is still six deaths. Paul Goggins: Yes, and this is perhaps a good time to say that any death in custody, whether police or prison, is a matter of huge concern, but it is worth putting that figure into context, given the overall number. ACPO, and I will quote directly here from the ACPO guidance, say that, "Before resorting to use of force, police officers should use all other means to achieve desired outcome". I quote that in full because it is important to underline that restraint should only ever be used, and this is clearly understood, when all else has failed and that is the only option, and that is something which is, again, underlined by training and the police themselves and any equipment that is used, any facilities, all need to complement that approach. It is very important for everybody concerned - obviously for the individual who is being apprehended but also the staff involved - that that proper approach is adopted. Q246 Lord Judd: But do you think that right across the police and across the country as a whole, and obviously it will vary, training is all it could and should be, and is there anything that the Home Office could be doing to support particular forces in strengthening their training where this would be appropriate? Paul Goggins: It is fair to say that in some forces training is given a higher priority than others and is certainly afforded more resources than others. Part of the role of the Home Office is to ensure that the highest possible standards are encouraged everywhere, and that is certainly the approach we adopt. Going back to the earlier question about the balance between the national guidance and the national messages and policy, that needs local implementation and obviously the role of the Home Office is very much to encourage the best, and to implement best practice where that is possible. Certainly as one looks around one sees good examples where local forces are adopting good practice: they may be concentrating their custody suites in a limited number of police stations, making sure that the proper facilities are available, and maximising training. Where this is adopted, of course, it is good practice that we would want to see adopted elsewhere. Q247 Lord Judd: Do you find that where you have anxieties, if I may put it that way, these are related in any way to the overall performance of the force concerned? Do you find the forces which are overall performing better to a higher standard are probably better in this respect than others? Paul Goggins: I have not seen any direct correlation but life's experience tells you that one is likely to see better performance from the better prepared and the better trained people, but I would not want to give the impression that there are forces that do not have any training. There is training in all forces. I simply make the point that in some forces more training is done and that is to be applauded because then, again, staff who are properly trained will be confident in the work that they do and in facing some of these very challenging and difficult situations, if the police involved are well-trained they will be confident and they will carry out their duties in a highly competent way. Q248 Lord Judd: You talk about being competent and confident and, of course, in your written evidence you refer to the emergency nature of the work which, by definition, means that there is sometimes very little time to assess the situation and so on. You would, therefore, say the training becomes more important than ever because people have to instinctively do the right thing? Paul Goggins: Well, I would, and one of the key tasks which the police officers would have in that urgent situation would be to do a very thorough but quick risk assessment. Simply to work out whether somebody is intoxicated, whether somebody has a mental health problem, or whether somebody is just plain aggressive and to make that kind of judgment quickly and effectively requires considerable skill, and obviously the better trained that officer is the more likely they are to be able to make a comprehensive decision. Q249 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Minister, I want to turn to the problems of race. The Police Complaints Authority and NGOs have pointed to a very worrying disparity in the extent to which control of restraint is used against members of ethnic minority groups as distinct from the rest of the population. First of all, do you accept that there is that worrying disparity? Paul Goggins: We accept what the Police Complaints Authority have said. Clearly we share concerns and, if I may speak candidly, one shares this concern right across society: that very often, whether it is in terms of poverty or this kind of issue or numbers of people in prison, the disproportionate representation of ethnic minority groups is of concern. What we must do is continue to be thorough in trying to establish why that is the case. The Committee suspended from 5.06 pm to 5.16 pm for a division in the House of Lords. Q250 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: You remember, Minister, that after the Stephen Lawrence tragedy the Government brought in amendments to the Race Relations Act in order to apply the full force of the Race Relations Act to the police service among other public authorities. On this question of the troubling disproportionate use of control and restraint against black and Asian detainees, how far is the new positive obligation on the police imposed by that Act and the monitoring by the Commission for Racial Equality working, because this Government has very wisely introduced these new mechanisms but I know nothing about how they are working in practice, and it is quite important in looking at remedies to see how the system is working. Paul Goggins: I will ask John to comment in a second but I would want to emphasise that these matters are taken extremely seriously by the Department. Q251 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I understand. Paul Goggins: Again, it is a question of training to ensure we get the procedures right but also the culture, so that people's attitudes and outlook have the right kind of disposition. It is important to emphasise that, whilst there is this disproportionate use in relation to restraint, that same disproportionality is not evidenced in terms of the actual deaths that occur. There is not that same concern, and I think that is a point that is worth making because obviously these are two related but slightly different issues. Mr Woodcock: I am not sure that I can help you specifically with the Race Relations Act point and how that in particular is monitored in relation to the use of force by police or the use of restraint. Certainly in relation to any individual case where a complaint was made against a police officer related to some use of restraint or force, and certainly in relation to the investigations that are conducted into every single death, either in custody or following contact with the police, any kind of suggestion or implication that any element of discrimination or even racism was involved in this would be taken extremely seriously. In cases where these issues are raised these quickly, as you will appreciate, become primary issues in those cases. Q252 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am asking you a much more specific question, and it may well be you can help us by writing to us, but can I make it plain what I am trying to get at? Paul Goggins: Of course. Q253 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Here we have a new mechanism brought in in 2000, three years ago, in the new legislation, admirable with a monitoring mechanism and a positive duty, and the Home Office is responsible both for the CRE and the general legislation in that area. It would help us to know how that is really working in practice, given the justifiable indignation of the Stephen Lawrence tragedy, and the way in which Jack Straw built on that to get the law strengthened. We all agree about the seriousness with which this is taken by the Home Office; what we want is chapter and verse about what is really happening with the new mechanism. Paul Goggins: This is a very specific question on a very specific topic and, if it is helpful, I will write to the Committee and make sure you have that information. Q254 Chairman: That would be very helpful because NGOs in evidence to us have alleged that excessive physical force is used against ethnic minority people in police custody, and anything that you have got that would help to illuminate the situation would be very helpful. Baroness Prashar: Can I make a brief comment on this? I think the answer is rather disappointing because what you indicate is that it is a reaction that you have in relation to a complaint, but the positive duty means you have to take positive steps, and it is important to see what steps you have taken to monitor these situations. Paul Goggins: We will provide that information, as Lord Lester requests. Q255 Lord Judd: Returning just for a moment to control and restraint, the independent inquiry into the death of David Bennett in psychiatric detention made a number of quite important recommendations. What do you see as the implications of those recommendations for similar work by the police, and what has been done about it? Paul Goggins: Obviously that report made some very serious and important proposals and they have been taken on board, not least in relation to mental health issues and also substance misuse. At the present time draft guidance has been issued and has been consulted upon and we hope very soon to have the final results of that, and that will impact right across the whole country in every police force and every police force will be expected to develop local protocols that reflect the kinds of concerns highlighted in the report. So it is a very important report taken very seriously. Q256 Lord Judd: Taking what you have just said together with your earlier answers to the questions I have put, and relating it to the questions put by Lord Lester, do you have in the Home Office rigorous systems whereby, once you have issued the policy, you really do measure how effective implementation is, and look for the evidence proactively? Paul Goggins: Indeed, we do, we have a standards unit within the Home Office which does precisely this. One of the constant criticisms that people make of the Home Office is that it is sometimes not proactive enough in terms of local operational issues. Of course, the answer to that is that we operate our police system in this country on a local basis but at the same time, of course, we expect certain standards, so that is why we have the standards unit to make sure all these things are followed through and to make sure we have minimum standards in place. Obviously, however, the responsibility is on the local force to do the training and make sure these things are implemented properly, but they are taken extremely seriously. Q257 Lord Judd: Is the approach of the standards unit just simply to report on how well it is being done or not being done, or does the standards unit also have a function of where it is not being done as well as it might be, helping the particular force to get it right? Paul Goggins: Absolutely. The standards unit is a very proactive unit and engages with local forces, and certainly uses its position to help to drive standards up. It has local responsibility but with a very clear lead from the centre in relation to the kind of standards we expect. Q258 Lord Plant of Highfield: On the issue of police custody, could I take you to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the codes of practice which set out a set of criteria which should be used to determine whether someone in custody is in need of medical attention or not? The Committee has three concerns here which we would like you to address. Firstly, are there significant variations across different police forces in the standards of health care provided, and are you satisfied with the timeliness and standards in police custody suites, that they are sufficient to meet convention standards? That is the first question. Secondly, if all forces were able to meet the standards of best, do you think that would largely eliminate the problems of deaths in custody as a result of medical conditions and so forth? Your Department's evidence suggested that one way forward would be to involve health professionals more in the monitoring of people in custody in police cells and custody suites. Could you tell us how you intend to develop that? Are you going to set national standards? How is it going to be driven forward, since the Home Office itself suggested that was a way forward? Finally on this particular tranche of issues, again the Home Office's written evidence notes the benefits of alcohol treatment centres as an alternative to police custody, and the success of various pilot projects which have been undertaken, so is your Department encouraging the wider use of those centres? Paul Goggins: In terms of variations I would not necessarily describe them as significant but clearly, as in the previous discussion, there will be differences and always, as you went on to suggest, trying to identify what is the best in terms of good practice and then trying to spread that as good practice is something that the Home Office would see as very important. This issue of a wider involvement of medical expertise within custody is very important. We see the expanding role, for example, of appropriate nurses to complement the police surgeon who would also be part of that team, and other health professionals as appropriate will help to make sure we get the right kind of care and treatment of people in a more timely fashion, and certainly our view is that if we get that stronger team work in place then we will see an impact in terms of reducing the numbers of deaths in custody because we will have the right treatment available of the right kind at the right time. Q259 Lord Plant of Highfield: But would you see that as leading to some kind of national standard setting? Paul Goggins: Indeed. The Home Office has issued national health care standards and that is something that we take very seriously indeed so, again, we see this as setting standards and developing a model locally which draws on the best variety of health expertise so we can meet the need in an entirely appropriate way. In relation to alcohol treatment centres, we see those as having considerable potential. Indeed, there is a pilot initiative in Watford that we will be watching very carefully to see whether that helps to improve performance in this area. I believe it will and, if we can learn from that as a model of good practice, then that can be spread to other forces. Q260 Lord Plant of Highfield: I have a separate issue now: the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints Commission is certainly seen by most people as an important step down the road towards the more fully independent investigation of deaths in police custody. Does the Home Office see that as pretty much the end of the road? Will that be the final form of all these investigations? Or do you think that we have to keep this constantly under review as to whether this is the best way of trying to resolve the issue of what happened, whether anyone is responsible, and what should happen if someone is responsible for the situation that led to the death? Paul Goggins: It certainly is a significant step in the right direction, although all of these matters need to be kept constantly under review to make sure we continue to move in the right direction, because the obligations arising from Article 2 in relation to the independent investigation of deaths that occur in the hands of the State require us to have a greater degree of independence than we perhaps had in the past, and that is why it is important that from this April the Independent Police Complaints Commission will carry out investigations to all deaths in police custody - and rightly so. They will be able to oversee the work that police investigate in a particular instance. Of course, their findings will need to sit alongside the other findings - for example, the findings of the inquest and any other reports that may arise out of particular incidents - and taken in the round all of these will help us to fulfil our obligations but also make sure that we learn from any incidents which regrettably occur so we can try and prevent them happening in the future. Q261 Lord Judd: You were talking about the balance between the highly commendable principle that police forces have a local responsibility and the need nationally to ensure standards. That applies obviously also in terms of custody officers, and your written evidence suggests that there is a good deal of variation of standards across the country in this respect. How is the Home Office tackling that to try and ensure that absolutely everywhere you are getting the right standards and the right training to ensure that those standards are met, because the State has a very fundamental obligation to protect the human rights of those in its care? Paul Goggins: It does have that fundamental obligation, and again I return to the ACPO guidance, the personal safety manual, which is a very important document, and really is the foundation of so much that comes out in terms of the training of custody officers. At local level, however, we also see greater specialisation so that those people who operate as custody officers gain more and more expertise in that particular role, and again within the right kind of facilities and with the right kind of back-up and training that helps them to do their job more effectively. That means they know how to assess risk: they can identify problems and they can liaise with medical experts so that they can be brought in at the right time, so that the role of the custody officer is absolutely central to all this and their training is of the highest order of priority. Q262 Lord Judd: Are you satisfied with the rate of progress, or do you have any frustrations in this respect? Paul Goggins: I have learned over the last few months never to be entirely satisfied with anything because there is always room for further progress, however well one might be doing. This is an area of on-going development and it is one we are very interested in and will continue to make sure that further progress is made. Clearly such a fundamental aspect as the training of custody officers up and down the length and breadth of the country remains a challenging area but one we are committed to. Q263 Lord Judd: But you would say that it is not just a matter of the Home Office saying, "Well, we have put on the record what should happen": it is what does happen that is the issue? Paul Goggins: Indeed, and all of this has to be analysed and assessed appropriately because in the end its performance that counts. We watch very carefully indeed the performance of police forces up and down the country in a whole range of areas, and in areas where particular forces fall down or back that is an issue that is taken up with them. Q264 Chairman: I am conscious, Minister, that last October there was a conference on deaths in police care and there was an acknowledgement that custody is not recognised as a specialism in many police forces, and that part of the problem was the professional recognition of custody officers and the sensitivity and responsibility of the job really did not receive either sufficient status or attention? Paul Goggins: As I said previously, some forces are beginning to see this very much as a specialised function and some considerable benefits can come from that, because it is a very important responsibility to make sure that we achieve the correct balance between the need to investigate and apprehend people but also the need to make sure that people are respected and their human rights are maintained. Q265 Mr Stinchcombe: As I understand matters, Minister, a police cell can be used as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act in order to assess someone who has been detained under Section 136, and there has been concern expressed about that practice by MIND. Can you tell me, first of all, how extensive that practice is? Paul Goggins: It is not usually extensive and certainly we have a very clear view that it should only be as a last resort. It is not something that we would like to see: we do not think that a police cell is the right place for any kind of mental health intervention at all. Only if it were absolutely essential would that occur. Q266 Mr Stinchcombe: And that is covered by some form of code of conduct, or guidelines? Mr Woodcock: Without having had a chance to check the detail of codes of practice in this area, I believe that the Section 136 capacity to use a police cell is referred to in them, and it is emphasised that this is a last-resort situation. Q267 Mr Stinchcombe: Is any data kept as to how extensively police cells are used for these purposes? Mr Woodcock: We do not have any standard data although we could relatively easily collate that data if you were interested to know that information. Q268 Mr Stinchcombe: I think that would be helpful. Could you also indicate whether any concerns have been expressed to you or the Department by either police officers or officials within the Department of Health about the extent to which police cells are used for these purposes? Mr Woodcock: Certainly police officers I know from conversations with them over the years are often not entirely happy that police cells are used for these purposes because, like us, they recognise it is not in any way an ideally suitable environment. On the other hand sometimes there is a recognition that, in default of a better facility, a police cell is often at least a safe and secure environment where some facilities are available and medical personnel can be brought in to conduct medical assessments. I think it would be fair to say, therefore, that the police, perhaps like the Home Office, view it as not entirely satisfactory but sometimes a default option that has to be used. Q269 Mr Stinchcombe: If you could give us further information that would be very helpful. Paul Goggins: We certainly will. Your question underlines again the importance of a flexible approach to the medical care provided to people in police custody because the sooner we can get the appropriate health care assessment and treatment in place the more speedily people can be given the right kind of help, and whether that is in the cell itself or away from it we more quickly we can move the quicker we can get them the medical attention they need. Q270 Lord Plant of Highfield: Just before we leave the police, could you tell me whether the sorts of issues about national standards and adherence to them and so forth would form part of the inspection regime by the Inspectorate of Constabulary? Would a report from the inspector refer to these sorts of criteria, and are they part of the range of things that the police do that would normally be inspected? Paul Goggins: Indeed, this would be something that the Inspectorate would pay attention to. Q271 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Could Mr Woodcock return to the question he was asked by my colleague, Mr Stinchcombe, just now? I think you said there is no data in the Home Office at present about the use of police cells as places of safety under the Mental Health Act. Maybe I misheard you but does that mean that at the moment you could not answer the question as to how widespread the use of police cells as places of safety under the Mental Health Act is because you have not got the data, or have I misunderstood? Mr Woodcock: I am not personally aware of us having up-to-date statistical data. My response along the lines that this facility is used rarely is based on relatively numerous discussions with police forces over a period of time when the issue of the use of Section 136 for a police cell is raised with us. It is clear from those discussions that this is a relatively infrequent situation that arises, but I am personally not aware that we hold statistical information on that, although that is not necessarily to say that somewhere in the Home Office someone may not have this information available. I am not aware of it. Q272 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: But you are the official, as it were, in charge of this area? Mr Woodcock: Indeed, and from a police powers and custody perspective I am not aware that we collate that data. Q273 Chairman: May we turn now, Minister, to immigration detention? As I understand it, the policy on immigration detention is set out in the Operation Enforcement Manual and lists categories of people "normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances", and there is reference to people who are mentally ill or who have been tortured. We have been told by NGOs active in this field, however, that the "exceptional circumstances" standard is not being applied to people falling within these categories and, indeed, torture survivors and the seriously mentally ill are in practice detained, even if it is recorded in medical reports. How confident can you be that this manual is going to be followed so that survivors of torture are not, in practice, detained? Paul Goggins: I can only emphasise in answer to that question that our policy is very clear: that where anybody has been subject to torture that fact will weigh very heavily indeed against their detention. That does not rule out the fact that sometimes it may be appropriate, but I can only emphasise to you as a Committee that that is the level of weight that we attach to any evidence that an individual has been tortured. Q274 Chairman: The training of staff immigration detention centres is obviously of huge importance and requires a lot of sensitivity. Are you confident of the level of training and the level of performance? Paul Goggins: Indeed, the kind of training that is provided within the immigration centres is of a comparable standard to that provided within the Prison Service and that is, I believe, of an impressive kind. It is something that is taken very seriously indeed: that suicide and self-harm prevention are afforded a very high priority and that is reflected in the training of both services. It is extremely important. Q275 Chairman: Do you know how many immigration detainees are currently held in prison? Paul Goggins: I can tell you the figure for 27 December. There were 145 individuals held in prison under the Immigration Act. As you know, the Home Secretary made it clear in January 2002 that detention in prison would only be used in very exceptional circumstances and that remains the case. There are, of course, some other people and at that same date, 27 December, there were about another 300 people who were held under what is called "dual detention": that is where they also have been in prison because they were serving a custodial sentence for a criminal offence. Q276 Chairman: Do you have any idea when the Home Office will end use of prison for immigration detainees in line with what you just said about the Home Secretary's statement? Paul Goggins: In policy terms it is ended, but we always made it clear that there may be some exceptional individuals and circumstances that require them to be in prison. That will remain the case but we will strive to make sure that number is as small as possible. It might, for example, be that somebody has served a prison sentence for a criminal offence and is awaiting deportation and, for one reason or another, is not able to be deported at that time. They may have made an application for asylum or there may be some other procedure which is on-going, and it may therefore be appropriate for them to remain in prison pending the outcome of that particular process. It is that kind of exceptional individual circumstance that would require them to remain in prison but, as I say, 145 was the number at the end of December. Q277 Lord Judd: On this point, you say that your objective is that it would be only in "exceptional" cases but you have also said that you have not reached that objective yet, so by implication there are people in prison who are not "exceptional" cases at the moment. What estimate would you say of numbers is appropriate in that context? Paul Goggins: The policy is very clear: that the routine use of prison in such circumstances has been ended because that was something that quite clearly people were concerned about and the Home Office announced that policy in 2002, but there will be exceptional circumstances and they will relate to the individual circumstances of a particular -- Q278 Lord Judd: But, if the Chairman will forgive me, the question I am asking is at the moment how many of the 145 are, in fact, exceptional cases or how many are there because you have not yet reached your objective? Paul Goggins: All of those 145 are there for exceptional personal circumstance. Q279 Lord Judd: So you have already reached your objective? Paul Goggins: The objective is we do not make routine use of prison custody for immigration cases. That is the policy and that is implemented as policy, but we always made it clear that there may be individual circumstances that warrant the continued use of prison in exceptional cases. Q280 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Going back to the Chairman's question, of that 145, how many are torture survivors or seriously mentally ill? Paul Goggins: I could not give you a precise answer to that question but I shall write to the Committee with it. Q281 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: That would be very helpful but, of that 145, would it be possible to break them down to show us why each of them is an exceptional case, justifying being in prison? Paul Goggins: Would it be helpful, Chairman, if we wrote such a letter to analyse that group of people in a slightly more detailed way? Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Just taking that 145. Q282 Chairman: Yes. Thank you very much. What lessons has the Home Office learnt from the fire at Yarl's Wood detention centre, and what preventative measures have been taken? Paul Goggins: Stephen Shaw, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, is still conducting his investigation and has not yet reported although we hope he will in the not too distant future, so I am unable to say completely what we have learnt until we have studied his report in full. Of course, there have been other investigations and inquiries at local level: the police in Bedfordshire, the Fire and Rescue Services and, indeed, County Council have all undertaken their own investigations. I can say we have learnt lessons, for example, in relation to construction, and the construction at Colnbrook reflects some of the lessons we have learnt: we have re-opened Yarl's Wood with a sprinkler system, and in Harmondsworth, too, a sprinkler system has been installed, so these are very basis lessons which have been learned and already acted upon, but in the fullness of time we will have Stephen Shaw's recommendations and will consider them very carefully. Q283 Baroness Prashar: Minister, can I now turn to the question of deaths in prison? In her evidence to us the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, said that overcrowding "inhibits prisons' ability to provide a secure environment". Would you agree that overcrowding can be a contributory factor to deaths in custody? Paul Goggins: Overcrowding in our prisons, and may I say today's population exceeds 74,800 so the population figure is something that exercises my mind on a daily basis, is obviously a source of great challenge - not least to the prison officers who look after people in our prisons. Having said that, I think the numbers themselves are certainly not the cause of all of the pressure; I think it is the degree of movement which occurs as a result of the overcrowding in our system that is much more important. Whilst there are 74,800 in our prisons today: last year there were 250,000 individual receptions into our prisons, and this is because people may be received into a local prison and then moved on to another prison and then maybe on to another prison in the course of quite a short prison sentence, and it is that movement which obviously does not help if a particular individual prison is vulnerable. So I think that is of concern. Of course, we have taken and continue to take considerable steps to expand the number of places in our prison system. We have added 15,000 places over the last few years; we have plans for an additional 3,000 places in existing prisons; we have two new prisons, one opening this year, one next; we have implemented the whole detention curfew system and as of today about 3,500 people who would otherwise be in prison are at home on a tag and a curfew, so we are taking action to try and reduce the pressure on our prisons. I have no doubt that the numbers do have an impact but the more serious impact is because of the movement that occurs in the system. Q284 Baroness Prashar: So what steps are you taking to reduce the movement? Paul Goggins: The steps I have outlined in terms of increasing capacity are the most important steps we are taking. It is clearly important that we have sufficient places for the numbers of people who are sent into prison. If we could stabilise the prison population then we would be in a better position to stabilise the movement of those prisoners within the system but where things are so tight it is inevitable that prisoners do have to move around. Q285 Baroness Prashar: You talk about stabilising the prison population but, as you are well aware, England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in the European Union, and that does make it difficult to make prison safe. Would you agree? Paul Goggins: The size of our prison population is the source of much debate. I am sure members of the Committee will have seen early in January in the Carter Report the conclusions of Patrick Carter drawn from his investigation into the use of correctional services generally in our country which were made available, and, indeed, the Home Office's response to that. We are very clear that prison needs to be available for those who commit the most serious crimes and for those from whom we need protection, but there are far too many people in our prisons who are there for short periods of time who could perhaps more constructively be helped if they were on a community punishment rather than prison. What we are seeking to do is make sure prison is reserved for the most serious offenders, that those who can be punished in the community should be punished in the community, and that perhaps rather more people who currently occupy probation officers' caseloads should be fined, which would be a far more effective and rebalanced system. Q286 Baroness Prashar: How well informed do you think magistrates and judges are about the availability and effectiveness of alternatives to prison, and should they be considering those more seriously for those who are either vulnerable or young? Paul Goggins: If we are to rebalance our correctional services it is essential that sentencers make greater use of community punishment rather than short-term prison sentences. The Criminal Justice Act established the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which coincidentally has its first meeting on Friday of this week, and that body will have a fundamentally important role to play in impressing on sentencers not just what is an appropriate penalty but what might be effective in terms of reducing reoffending. In my view, the chances of influencing somebody's offending behaviour through an intensive community programme which may involve some educational work, some attention to their offending behaviour, maybe a tag, maybe some reparation, is a far more effective intervention than spending four weeks lying on your bunk in a prison cell. Q287 Baroness Prashar: What plans do you have to promote community punishment for less serious offenders? Paul Goggins: As a Minister I continue to promote them as, indeed, does the Probation Service which is responsible for implementing them. For example, we have now implemented the drug treatment and testing order. Last year there were 6,000 orders, in the current year we expect there to be 9,000, and next year 13,000. We are trying to develop the capacity, whether in relation to drugs or other offending, of community sentences so that sentencers have the option to use them. They will, of course, want to see that these penalties are effective: they will want to see that they are properly enforced, and these are issues which are of great concern to me and to the probation service, but if we can get those kinds of penalties used appropriately for the right kind of offenders, then we can take some pressure off our prisons and, I believe, have a more effective impact on their behaviour. Q288 Mr Stinchcombe: You have just given us figures for prison occupancy. Is that the highest level? Paul Goggins: It is indeed the highest level. Q289 Mr Stinchcombe: And it is right, is it not, that a large proportion of those currently in prison have either substance abuse problems or mental health problems? Paul Goggins: It is certainly true that the intake into a local prison could see the prevalence of alcohol or drug misuse as high as 80 per cent which obviously has huge implications for the way that the Prison Service looks after those particular individuals. There is a related but separate issue in relation to mental health. We estimate there may be as many as 5,000 of the 78,000 prisoners in our prison system today who have significant mental health needs - maybe not so severe that they need to be in a hospital but so significant that if they were in the community they would be looking to access secondary services. Q290 Mr Stinchcombe: One presumes that many of these people in prison with substance abuse problems or mental health problems are there precisely because they committed offences caused by those mental health problems or substance abuse problems? Paul Goggins: Indeed. It may be more appropriate for somebody with a substance misuse problem that they are dealt with on the drug treatment testing order where they are supported in the community rather than in prison, but where they are sent to prison, or perhaps on remand, as a punishment, we are geared up to make sure that they receive the appropriate treatment, so for example 50,000 people last year went through a detoxification programme so they could be helped off the drugs to which they are addicted, and then obviously the drug treatment that follows on from that is very important, both inside prison and outside the community. Q291 Mr Stinchcombe: I will come on to the drugs order in just a second, if I may, but can you tell me the proportion of people in custody who present themselves to the relevant authorities before they go to prison with either substance abuse problems or mental health problems, so that prior action would have been possible? Paul Goggins: In local prisons, prisons where people would be typically placed on remand and where immediate custody would occur, from the figures I have seen up to as many as 80 per cent of new admissions would have a significant alcohol or drug dependency problem. Q292 Mr Stinchcombe: That is not a precise answer to the question I am asking. Of those who have that kind of medical problem, whether substance abuse or mental health, do you have any figures as to what proportion would have presented themselves to health authorities with those kinds of problems before going into custody? Paul Goggins: I do not have a precise answer to that question; I do not know whether that exists. It is not a figure I have seen although I will strive to see if we have it. The common sense answer is that many of them will have done. Q293 Mr Stinchcombe: Some of the figures I think I have seen as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust are that, for example, in young offenders as many as 90 per cent have presented themselves to the relevant authorities with a problem within a year of going into custody, and because of a failure to intervene or a failure of the intervention they end up in custody. If that is right, it would be a very worrying figure, would it not? Paul Goggins: It would be of great concern. It is of great concern that there are people who have significant dependency problems who could be identified and helped before they commit an offence which leads them to end up in prison and, of course, it would be better if those early interventions were successful. Q294 Mr Stinchcombe: And make your job in trying to accommodate all these prisoners a little bit easier? Paul Goggins: Certainly prevention is always better than cure, and one of the things we are learning in relation to youth justice in particular is that, where we can get preventative strategies in place and where we can divert people from the formal justice process, that can help to reduce reoffending rates but also to reduce the numbers of people who go to custody, so there is evidence that, if you have an effective preventative strategy, it can work. Q295 Mr Stinchcombe: Turning to those with mental health problems, do you agree with the evidence of MIND that prison tends to make those with mental health problems more mentally unwell? Paul Goggins: I think it is true that for some people time spent in prison can have a negative impact on their mental health. Equally I have seen evidence to suggest that people who may arrive in custody, drug dependent and really with considerable mental health problems, can be helped through that and ultimately out, beyond their release. Indeed, I chair a ministerial round table on suicide and self-harm induction, and we had a meeting at New Hall prison only last week, and I and other members of the group received a presentation from two of the inmates at New Hall prison, one of whom had arrived at that prison in January with considerable mental health problems, and on the day we were there was released on bail in a very positive frame of mind. Indeed, she had done a very positive presentation to us at the round table, so that was a good example of how somebody can be helped to sort their problems out in prison, but I would not for a minute deny the fact that for some people a time spent in prison can have a very negative impact. Q296 Mr Stinchcombe: One category of person you have already raised is that prisoner who has such severe mental health problems that he or she would otherwise be sectionable so as to be held in a secure specialist unit. Do you believe that people with that degree of mental health problems should ever be in prison if an alternative specialist secure bed is available? Paul Goggins: Anybody who requires acute mental health care should be in hospital rather than prison and, indeed, last year 639 people were transferred from prison into a secure hospital because of their acute needs. At any one time, though, I would accept there are about 40 people in our prisons who should be moved into a hospital and are having to wait. We do not want them to wait any longer than three months - occasionally they do - but I believe the Prison Service and Health Service have got better at moving people more speedily into acute care where that is required. Q297 Mr Stinchcombe: What causes that delay? Is it lack of specialist beds outside the Prison Service, or is it administrative and medical pressures on staff within the Prison Service? Paul Goggins: It is largely a capacity issue. Q298 Mr Stinchcombe: Can I turn to the second issue you raise which is drugs treatment, both in and out and after prison? Do you believe that drugs treatment should include both maintenance of patients as well as rehabilitation of patients? Paul Goggins: Within the prison? Q299 Mr Stinchcombe: Within the prison. Paul Goggins: Increasingly those responsible for operating drug treatment in our prisons accept that maintenance is an important element for some prisoners - not all but some. For example, in relation to methadone, they would see methadone maintenance as being the appropriate treatment for some prisoners. What we have to get better at is learning quickly from experience and spreading the practice right across the Prison Service because, from my visits to different prisons, I know that different systems operate in different prisons. We have to learn what works best and make sure that practice is spread. Q300 Mr Stinchcombe: As I understand it, one of the areas where there may be a difference in practice between certain prisons is in the use of naltrexone to block the effects of heroin of someone who has been taken off heroin. Do you know how widespread the use of naltrexone is in the use of Prison Service? Paul Goggins: I could not make a firm statement about that in relation to where it is used in prisons to help people. What I do know is that different treatment systems are operating in different prisons, and one of the things the Prison Service has to learn is what works best and to make sure best practice is followed through. Health care in our prisons is increasingly run by the National Health Service so services available in our prisons will be commissioned by the local Primary Care Trust. To some extent again we see the local leadership and accountability in this sphere, as we were talking before, in relation to the police, so we have to make sure that that local leadership is honoured and at the same time working out what works best. Q301 Mr Stinchcombe: On that last issue, is it right, as reported in the Guardian today, that health officials are telling the Prison Service that they should use needle exchanges rather than sterilisation tablets to deal with the problems of hepatitis and AIDS in prisons? Paul Goggins: With everything else I have had to do I have not had an opportunity to read the Guardian but I shall read it later on today and see the point that is made. If there is anything that arises from my reflection on that I shall write to you. Q302 Mr Stinchcombe: On that issue of AIDS in prison in particular, what is the position of the Government on condoms? Paul Goggins: That position is an operational matter for the Director General of the Prison Service and I believe, with other issues, it is one that he is considering. Q303 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Could I ask you a question about the judges and making more use of community penalties including residential drug rehabilitation and centre requirements and so on? Now, I was a judge and for ten years a recorder, and I used to go to the indoctrination camp called the Judicial Studies Board Weekend Residential Course, where people like me were taught to send people to prison for longer than we might otherwise, or vice versa, and the Home Office used to turn up and had a very weak voice because they were not judges or professors but the Home Office and, on the whole, the Home Office took a rather liberal attitude towards punishment - that is to say they were not encouraging people like me to send convicted prisoners to prison unnecessarily. On the contrary. You have talked about the sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Council which I approve of, but are you able to have any kind of input to the training of criminal judges in these residential courses without interfering with the independence of the judiciary in doing so, in order to try to change the sentencing culture and the knowledge that there is about alternatives to custody? I am not suggesting you should be getting at judges; I am simply asking the question as to how much input you can have into that training without in any way encroaching on judicial independence? Paul Goggins: As you rightly say, the individual judge in an individual case will make an individual decision, but it is very important that the Home Office contributes to the training you have just described, and we will continue to do so. I cannot emphasise strongly enough, however, that the role of the Sentencing Guidelines Council here will be absolutely essential. They know what the available resources are in our correctional services; we are making it clear that we think that 80,000 prison places ought to be enough for us to be able to manage our prison population; we are also clear about the capacity that we think is required in our community intervention in order to make sure that people can be punished within the community. What we need the Sentencing Guidelines Council to do is make a proper assessment of what is effective in terms of punishment for particular individuals in particular groups of people in relation to particular kinds of offences. Where I think the Home Office has perhaps not been as strong in the past as it should be is getting information back to sentencers about what does work in practice. It is very important that Martin Narey, who is the chief executive of the National Offenders Management Service and who will be a member of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, takes back to that body detailed information and analysis about what works in practice so that sentencers will use their knowledge of what is effective when they are making their guidance to sentencers. Q304 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If I can just leave you with this thought, we have a remarkably humane and expert Lord Chief Justice who would be very sympathetic to what you are doing, and I am suggesting that in addition to these guidelines there is much more training, with his consent and leadership, in order that the guidelines are translated into practice by the individual sentencing judge. Could you think about that? Paul Goggins: Absolutely, and I think the message needs to be stronger. You are twice as likely to get a custodial sentence if you go to the Crown Court now than ten years ago. The increase in severity in sentencing bears no relation whatsoever to an increase in criminality or seriousness of offending; it is simply an increase in the seriousness of the penalties that are meted out, and we have to tackle that because there is no evidence to say that that is reducing reoffending rates. Q305 Baroness Prashar: I see that the Government have endorsed the Carter Report's recommendation that prisons should be bigger and some smaller prisons should be shut but the evidence we have received, both written and oral, states that smaller prisons are able to better meet the need of prisoners, especially vulnerable ones. Why have you endorsed the Carter Report's recommendations? Would you expect prisons to provide a safer environment? Do you think they reduce the incidence of deaths in custody? Paul Goggins: We think there can be some benefits from closing some of the smaller, older prisons that are not fit for purpose and re-investing the proceeds into creating larger prisons and also some additional capacity in the community, and that is our objective. Of course, it is how large prisons are organised which is the crucial issue. A large institution can be organised in a way that means the individual prisoner gets the appropriate support and environment that they require. There are economies of scale that can be made, and one of the benefits that you will see from large prisons of the kind described by Patrick Carter is, I believe, a reduction in the amount of movement that goes on within the Prison Service. I described before how movement was perhaps a more significant factor in relation to suicide and self-harm than prison numbers, and if we could ensure that people were able to serve the whole of their prison sentence in one place that is perhaps a bit closer to home that might be helpful. Certainly, if we see new punishment such as Custody Plus coming on-stream as a result of the Criminal Justice Act, there will be a need for a much more coherent join between what is going on in the prison and what is going on in the community, and a much more coherent follow-through. I do not believe, therefore, that the creation of the larger prisons, which would inevitably be closer to our urban centres, would necessarily of themselves be negative. How they are managed will be obviously of critical importance but I think they can help to provide an appropriate environment for many prisoners. The Committee suspended from 6.05 pm to 6.15 pm for a division in the House of Commons. Q306 Baroness Prashar: Minister, I want to ask three brief questions on conditions in prison. Do you think that adverse prison conditions, including overcrowding, have a detrimental effect on the ability of prison officers to act in a humane way, and promote a culture in prisons that demonstrates respect for human rights? Paul Goggins: As I said before, the large number of people in our prisons clearly presents a challenge to all of us, particularly to those prison officers who have to supervise and look after them. However, as you will be aware, the so-called "decency agenda" for the prison services was a very important innovation, and one which is now sustained in the follow-through and the making-a-real-difference. Whatever people have done that means they are in prison, they have a right to be treated with decency: that is a human value but it also has benefits in terms of the response which prisoners give. If they are treated decently they are more likely to behave decently, so for all of those reasons this is something which the Prison Service takes seriously and, even though there is such pressure within the system at the moment, I believe that on the whole these are values which are being seen through interpractice, and I pay tribute to those prison officers who, day in day out, meet this challenge because it is not easy work but they are sustaining it. Q307 Baroness Prashar: What steps have been taken to support the Prison Service in ensuring safeguards are in place to prevent the type of intimidation and brutality by some prison officers that took place and went unchallenged for a long time in Wormwood Scrubs and Portland prisons? Paul Goggins: The kind of behaviour you are referring to is utterly unacceptable and in line with the decency agenda the Prison Service is utterly committed to ensuring that people are treated appropriately and, where they are not, then very serious and severe action is taken. As the Minister responsible for this service I accord a very high priority to this. There is never a circumstance in which it is permissible for a prison officer, or anybody who is responsible for the custody of another person, to behave in a way which is brutal and simply unacceptable. Q308 Baroness Prashar: But what safeguards are you putting in place to make sure that it does not happen? Paul Goggins: The safeguard of effective management. The governors of our prisons are responsible for the conduct of the staff and the welfare of the prisoners and this is followed through in a rigorous way, and I think the management systems that are now in place are much more effective in being able to identify inappropriate behaviour and deal with it. Again, the evidence that I have seen any time I have been doing this particular job gives me confidence that, where inappropriate behaviour takes place, it is dealt with very seriously and severely. Q309 Baroness Prashar: Finally, a number of reports by the Prisons Inspectorate and the Independent Monitoring Board have observed that in some prisons prisoners are locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. How are you going to help the Prison Service improve this situation? What steps have been taken? Paul Goggins: It is the responsibility of the Inspectorate to highlight concerns they have across all our prisons and, indeed, the Independent Monitoring Board too. It is not true to say that large numbers of people in prison are in their cell for 23 hours a day. Some will be in prison for that kind of time but they will tend to be smaller numbers of prisoners in segregation units, for example. In fact, if I take you through the period from April to December of last year, during the weekday the average time out of cell was some 9.9 hours during the week and at weekends some 8.4 hours, and that is taken across the whole of the prison state. It is essential, however, that when people are in prison they are actively engaged, not least in educational work, in order to improve their skills and abilities and increase their chances of a job and staying out of trouble after their release, and I can only emphasise that in the current year we expect 50,000 basic skills qualifications to be achieved in our prisons. This is one in ten of all basic skills qualifications gained anywhere in the country. It is a remarkable turn around in the Prison Service and bodes well for the overall objective of reducing reoffending because, if these people who, literally when they go to prison cannot read and write, can learn to do that, then it enhances their chances. Obviously that kind of education requires people to be out of their cell in classrooms learning, and for most of us there is a reasonable amount of time out of cells each day. Q310 Baroness Prashar: Would you say that those who are likely to be in for 23 hours, possibly the ones in segregation units, are probably the most vulnerable and possibly the most at risk in terms of suicides? Paul Goggins: They would not necessarily be although if they were in the segregation unit they would also be closely supervised, but there would be equally vulnerable people out on the wings also requiring supervision. The relatively small number of people who would be literally locked up in their cell for 23 hours a day would typically be on the segregation unit. Q311 Baroness Prashar: And they would be closely monitored? Paul Goggins: Closely supervised, yes. Q312 Lord Judd: You said you feel the management systems are in place to achieve the objectives to which you aspire. Management systems are terribly important, crucial, but they are inanimate; it is the people who are operating them that really matter and in this leadership is crucial. Do you feel that, with the pressures on the Prison Service at the moment and, indeed, expansion in the number of prisons to which you have referred, you are getting the calibre of leadership at senior management levels in prison that you really require to make a success of all these bits that you are putting in place? Paul Goggins: May I say that the Prison Service and, indeed, all of us have been fortunate in the current Director General and the previous Director General of the Prison Service. They are the only two I have personal knowledge of so I cannot go any further back. Q313 Lord Judd: But in the individual prisons? Paul Goggins: This is important because Martin Narey and Phil Wheatley give a very personal and deeply committed lead to the Prison Service - Martin when he was Director General and Phil now he has that position. That is very important because it sends a very clear message from the top about decency and professionalism which filters down through the organisation. I can only say that, since I was given these responsibilities some nine months ago, I have been very impressed and perhaps slightly surprised by the calibre and commitment of people who operate within the Prison Service, whether at management level or prison officers on the wing. No organisation, no system is perfect - do not get me wrong - and it is important that we deal with any inappropriate behaviour, as I was saying before, but I believe in the calibre of people there. I think the testimony of their effectiveness is the fact that they have managed such a large prison population in such challenging circumstances. Chairman: We now turn to the investigation of deaths in prisons. Q314 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In the Edwards case, Edwards v United Kingdom, the Strasbourg Court indicated what was needed to take effective investigation of deaths in custody, among others, under Article 2 of the Convention, and one of the things they pointed to was the need for there to be an independent investigation institutionally and in practice. Stephen Shaw, the Prison Ombudsman, gave us his view which was that the lack of a statutory basis for investigations which he will undertake from 1 April, and the fact that he cannot be seen to be manifestly independent of the Prison Service and the Probation Service means that he does not think that the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention are satisfied. That is obviously a rather serious matter because we lost the Edwards case and other cases. Do you agree with him? Paul Goggins: I agree with him that his office should be placed on a statutory footing, yes. When I was considering this whole issue towards the end of last year I was faced with the choice: do we wait until we have the legislation in place and we have the Ombudsman on a statutory footing, and who knows when that opportunity might come, or do we give him the responsibility and the resources to start now so that he begins to make a difference, and then look for the opportunity to put him on a statutory footing as and when parliamentary time allows? On balance I thought very strongly that we should give him the responsibility and the resources now and, indeed, from 1 April we will investigate all deaths in custody. I think he will give us a higher standard of report; I think we will learn a lot from those reports; I think it will increase public confidence and give us greater independence. In the end I believe very strongly he will need to be put on a statutory footing but I think we should make the very best of the service he is going to give us from 1 April. Q315 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: You say "in the end"; it is a question of how far away that is. This could be done in a very short period, it could be a short uncontroversial Bill on a statutory basis. Do you hope and believe that you and the Home Secretary will push hard for that to be done in order to comply with the requirements of the European Convention? Paul Goggins: You put that in a very tempting way. There are many other things that compete for parliamentary time, and I can only assure you and other members of this Committee that this is a very important aspect of the policy of giving responsibility for investigations to deaths in custody to the Ombudsman. I want to see those investigations begin as soon as possible, and I want to place his office on a statutory basis as soon as possible. The fact I cannot do those two things on the same day does not stop me giving him responsibilities. Q316 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If you do not do it soon my colleague Paul Stinchcombe will bring a judicial review before the courts on behalf of families in prison complaining that there is not an effective independent system, and it is not desirable to leave that to judges when Parliament can sort it out, is it? Paul Goggins: It is not possible to place him on a statutory footing for 1 April; it is possible to give him the responsibility and the resources and I have chosen to do that. Obviously the Home Secretary has chosen to do that on my recommendation because I think we need the benefits of that greater degree of independence and, indeed, Stephen has already proved his worth, not least in the report he did for me into the six deaths in Styal prison, when he presented me with a very effective comprehensive report which has been the source of an action plan in relation to Styal which will make a real difference. So he has already proved his worth on that particular incident and I am sure he and his colleagues will continue to do so. Q317 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sure our report may help you also with your bargaining power. Can I ask you a related question about the CRE? I have already asked you about the Race Relations Amendment Act and its effect on the police but, in relation generally to investigations in reviewing deaths in custody, has the CRE so far been able to be helpful to you in developing your thinking? Paul Goggins: I can give you a very clear indication that the CRE has played a very important role in helping the Prison Service to understand where things have gone wrong and, indeed, how to put things right, not least in the work they did around the death of Zahid Mubarek. They worked within the Prison Service; they were critical of some things, and the Prison Service was able to learn from that, and on balance the CRE believes the Prison Service is heading in the right direction, so their involvement, not just in being a critic of the Prison Service but of being a friend as well, trying to help develop good practice, has been one that has been very much valued by the Prison Service and by me. Q318 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Going back for a moment to the Ombudsman, would you favour extending the Ombudsman's remit to investigate incidents of serious self-harm? Paul Goggins: That is something that I would be prepared to consider: it is not an immediate priority. The reason why I would be prepared to consider it is that it is possible, of course, to learn from incidents of self-harm, what people might describe as a "near miss" in terms of somebody who is tempted to take their life and thankfully has not been successful, and if the Ombudsman was able to help us with that then that might be an additional benefit, but the Ombudsman's primary responsibility obviously is to get the new system of investigating all deaths in prison up and running from 1 April, and that kind of issue is something we can think about in the future. Q319 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: They are obviously very closely linked, are they not? Paul Goggins: They are, but I think we have to be reasonable and say, "Let's get Stephen and his colleagues working on the new system of investigating all deaths first" - regrettably there are far too many of those in our prisons - "and then see if there are other things we can learn from him by looking at issues of self-harm". Nothing I have said about the Ombudsman should be seen as a criticism of the Prison Service and the way it tries to learn from its understanding of self-harm and suicide in the prison system - indeed, there is a whole programme doing that at the moment - but if the Ombudsman can help in the future I am not closing my mind to it. Q320 Chairman: Minister, in evidence to us the NGO INQUEST made a proposal for the establishment of a Standing Advisory Commission on Custodial Deaths in relation to all forms of death in State custody. It was suggested that this would provide quite considerable benefits in terms of what is called "joined-up thinking". What is your reaction to this idea? Paul Goggins: My answer is probably similar to the answer I gave to the previous question which is that it is an idea that ought to be given further consideration. Clearly it would cut across different aspects of the Home Office, police, immigration, Prison Service. It is certainly not something we should dismiss but is something we should think about, but the priority now is to get the Police Complaints Commission up and running in terms of its responsibility of investigating deaths in police custody, get the Police and Probation Ombudsman up and running with his new responsibilities, make the best of those new services, and then we need to consider whether there are further actions we need to take. The proposal from INQUEST is one I believe we should give serious reflection to. Q321 Mr Stinchcombe: Minister, you will be aware that there have been very few successful prosecutions of any police officer or prison officer following a death in custody and, indeed, as I understand it, no successful prosecutions for a number of years despite several findings at INQUEST that the killing was unlawful. I am sure you will understand how worried and concerned aggrieved members of the family are when an apparent lack of justice results following the death of their loved one, and that sense of worrying concern is exacerbated when they see that the decision not to prosecute is taken by one arm of the State and the people who are being prosecuted are another arm of the State. What thoughts do you have as to how we might make both the investigation of these possible processes and the decision whether or not to prosecute more transparent and even more independent than it is at present? Paul Goggins: Clearly this takes me not just beyond my brief as Prisons and Probation Minister but slightly outside my department as well, because obviously the Crown Prosecution Service is crucial here and I am very clear that whether somebody is guilty of an offence in an institution, in a prison or a hospital, it is as much as if they have committed the offence on the street. If they have committed that offence and there is evidence to support that then appropriate action should be taken. I agree strongly that the system should be open and transparent, and particularly so where it is one arm of the State operating in relation to another. We have to be open and transparent here - perhaps above all else. Chairman: Minister, thank you very much for your patience today and for appearing before us. |