|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should point out that the Minister failed to mention the Welsh Office. Perhaps I may repeat what I said yesterday. There is profound anxiety in Wales about the neglect of the Principality. It is a deliberate insult to Wales when such important committees are set up with no Welsh representatives on them. Will the Minister please look into the matter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course; I always look into matters that are brought to my attention at the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may point out that no one is specifically representing England or Scotland in the matter. It is the expertise across Whitehall that is being brought to bear. I am sorry, I must take that back: I mentioned the Scottish Office. I shall certainly check on the situation. The particular reason for the mention of Northern Ireland was due to the specific case which was brought to the attention both of this House and of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary; and, indeed, was the reason for setting up the review in the first place. However, if the Welsh Office wishes to have an input into the debate, I shall make sure that the matter is considered.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is not the Welsh Office that I am particularly concerned with; it is the people of Wales who are anxious about the matter. The Welsh Office is there to serve them. Will the Minister also take that into account?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the complexities which are holding up the ultimate delivery of the report. Can the noble Baroness identify some of those complexitiesat least the main oneswhich are responsible for the delay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I am unable to give the most technical answer to the noble and learned Lord. However, I can comment on the balance of the definition of excessive force, the particular circumstances which surround it and the scope for a lesser charge. As has already been conveyed to the department, if a lesser charge is an option, it may well lead to more convictions rather than fewer. I know that that is a consideration.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. When instructed to argue that black is white, I am sure that the noble Baroness will do so with her usual skill and charm. In my long parliamentary experience, I have never heard a more disingenuous Answer than that one. However, is the Minister aware thatand if anyone wishes to contradict me, they had better do sothe report represents a total lack of trust between the present Government and the Prison Governors' Association, as the emergence of policies associated with Michael Howard two years ago are in total contradiction to the policies pursued by his six Conservative predecessors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did say that the manifesto was broadly helpful and that it was a generally positive report; and, indeed, broadly in line with government policies. For example, the Prison Governors' Association has said that it is in favour of mandatory drug testing (which is a new approach) and that linking prisoner incentives to behaviour is a good thing. We agree with the Prison Governors' Association on many things; for example, on the need for active,
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, given the fact that the prison departmental system within the Home Office was changed some years ago and replaced with the Next Steps Agency system, thus distancing decision taking from the Home Office, and in so far as the manifesto deals with operational matters, does it mean that from now on operational matters will be entirely in the hands of prison governors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. Certainly, since the Learmont Report, the noble Lord will know that there is to be a review about the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that debate because much of what was raised in the noble Lord's question are matters to be considered under that review. In the meantime, the Director General of Prisons remains responsible for the day-to-day operational proficiency, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. My right honourable friend remains responsible for policy.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Learmont Report reveals widespread incompetence and indiscipline throughout the Prison Service from governor grades down to prison officers? Further, was my noble friend as dismayed as I was at the widespread intimidation by prisoners of other prisoners and of staff? Finally, does my noble friend agree that it was inevitable that Mr. Derek Lewis should be speedily replaced and does she feel that it might be desirable to have a senior military person to take his place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not respond to my noble friend's specific point about the Director General of Prisons. However, I can say that, yes, I was dismayedas indeed many people would have beenat what General Learmont had to say in his report. It says much about the operational management of individual institutions and casts doubt on the director general's role as someone who was responsible for the operational management of the Prison Service.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Minister's noble friend has made observations about Mr. Lewis. However, is the noble Baroness aware that Mr. Lewis was appointed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took no account of the recommendation of the appointments board, which did not recommend him? Can the Minister explain that situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Mr. Lewis will not be the first person who has been appointed by anyone anywhere who, at the end of the day, does not give full performance which is satisfactory. That is the case. Mr. Lewis was appointed properly and it so happens that he has been found unsatisfactory in the job.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the statements that she has made todayand, indeed, which have been made in another placeconcerning the delineation between responsibility for policy and responsibility for operations are wholly in breach of the Government's undertaking given on 8th March 1990 as to the precise responsibilities and accountability of Ministers to Parliament in that regard? Will the noble Baroness say when any public amendment of that undertaking given to this Houseand, indeed, given to me when I was standing at the Dispatch Boxwas made? When was it amended officially and published in this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend remains accountable to Parliament for the effective delivery of the Prison Service. In order for him to fulfill that obligation to Parliament, it is absolutely essential that he liaises with his Director General of Prisons to find out what is going on in the Prison Service and for the Director General of Prisons to be his information link with the Prison Service. It is not for my right honourable friend to interfere operationally in the running of the prisons. He has defended that right, but he has every right to liaise with his Director General of Prisons to fulfill his obligations to Parliament and to be fully accountable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the review required by the Learmont Report of the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service, and indeed for the importance that she attaches to that review. Such is that importance, that she is not able to answer questions about it now. However, if that review was so important, why did the Home Secretary in his Statement to Parliament last week make no effective reference to the review but instead insisted twice that the Learmont Inquiry had made no criticism of him?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page