§ Motion made, and Quetion proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr.Graham.]
§ 4.3 pm
§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)I wish to draw attention to the problems of the safety of prison officers. In my constituency I have Maidstone Prison, Which is One of the older and most successful high-level security training prisons. I wand to pay tribute to the very high degree of prfessional competence of successive governors and staff of all grades and ranks. In that prison, I believe that they are doing a very good job.
This debate arises out of a case which was brought to my notice some months ago, and I have sought and Adjournment debate week by week since then. It is the specific case of a prisoner named Ephey Williams. Having looked into the case, however, I have become aware of far greater anxieties within the prison service. I shall deal later in my remarks with the case of Ephey Williams, but I want first to impress upon the Minister and the House that this is not just a "Oneoff" episode. There is long, continuing anxiety amongst prison officers of all grades and their families.
In the present week we have seen two cases reported in the Press. The News of the World last sunday reported an episode at Barlinnie Prison. The Sun on Monday reported the episode of the IRA Provos stirring up unrest among other conventional prisoners elsewhere 998 and causing bodily harm to prison officers. There have been a number of episodes in Maidstone Prison.
I do not want anyone to think that I am colour-prejudiced or am making sweeping generalities, but there are many extremely large, tough, black gentlemen incarcerated in prison today. We give them good food and they do physical jerks, which makes an already fit body a great deal fitter, whereas comparatively small pink wardens are responsible for their safety. This is a cause of anxiety. I hope that the Minister does not think I am seeking to make racial remarks, because I am not. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the sincerity of my point. There have been some unpleasant episodes where a prisoner who has misbehaved has been as English or as Welsh as the Minister or myself. Therefore. it is a perfectly fair statement.
I can think of one case when a prisoner threw what was put down on the charge sheet as a bucket of hot water over a prison officer. Seven months later the prison officer is still attending an ophthalmic hospital as an out-patient, and he has been off work for all those months. It was put down on the charge sheet as a bucket of hot water, because who can say what is scalding or boiling once it is discharged on to the floor, and who can say whether caustic soda or some other substance was in it? There is little doubt that there was some unpleasant noxious substance in the water. Charges against prisoners often sound much milder than the actual offence. A bucket full of scalding water containing caustic soda is much nastier than a bucket of hot water.
One knows of instances of prison officers who have been away sick for many weeks after attacks. In early January this year, three officers were attacked in Maidstone. One of them is still off sick. I raise this incident now because the prisoner who committed the offence lost 360 days' remission after being tried by the local visiting magistrate. These magistrates are, I am sure, viewed as being extremely fair people. They do not come down excessively in favour of the prison staff or the prisoner. They are fair-minded people who do a difficult job with absolute impartiality.
I turn now to the case of Ephey Williams, who held a prison officer at 999 knifepoint for 16 hours. The prison staff, the police and, in a fairly incompetent way, the Minister's Department viewed this as a very serious offence. Therefore, the case was sent to the Old Bailey so that the man could be made an example of and because it was too grievous to go to the local visiting magistrates. The local magistrates were the sort of people who had given 360 days' loss of remission in a lesser case. However, this case went to the Old Bailey in order to make a set-piece of it, and the prison staff said "Thank God. At last these people have got some sense and are going to make a good job of it."
There was no doubt that the man was guilty, and he pleaded guilty, but, instead of the prosecution having supporting evidence and people from the prison to give advice about the episode, they were left with a paper brief which was disgracefully mishandled.
No doubt the Minister knows nothing about this case, so perhaps I should fill in the background. Williams committed this offence because he said that he did not wish to be moved to Parkhurst Prison. He said that if he were moved he would be unable to have visits from a lady friend who lives in or near Maidstone. However, this was a friendship that had been struck up while Williams was inside—it was not a girl friend of long standing but rather a so-called prison helper who had come to the prison to help him. The governor was made aware of the relationship that was springing up between them, and the lady—I shall not name her—was told that she could no longer visit Maidstone or any other prison.
Williams was to be moved to Parkhurst, where there is an adequate psychiatric unit which could have helped him over his difficulties. He would have been removed from Maidstone, where he had no steady psychiatric help. The senior medical officer is a qualified man who does his best, but there are pressures on his time and on the time of all the medical staff. It was clearly more suitable that Williams should go to Parkhurst.
At the Old Bailey the defence said in mitigation that Williams would be removed from his girl friend, and the judge accepted this. There was no one 1000 there to tell him the real facts. Consequently Williams has gone to Chelmsford, where the psychiatric help for prisoners is even more slender than it is at Maidstone. Clearly, the Home Office bungled two aspects of this case.
Lord Harris replied to my complaint in a letter full of jargon and junk. I am sorry that the Minister is having to lose his Friday afternoon in order to listen to me, but I deplore the fact that Lord Harris, who has no knowledge of the day-to-day life of this House, cannot be questioned here and cannot be made to answer for some of the Civil Service jargon which goes out over his name.
In case after case, prison officers are perturbed. We had a "Panorama" television programme about the Hull riots which made out that the prison officers were a lot of wicked "screws" and that the prisoners were sad and pathetic people. It was the most biased programme, but the Prison Department has done absolutely nothing about it. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. The Department has done nothing to correct the impression given by that programme. The Department was asked to comment but refused to do so because the Official Secrets Act and similar measures inhibited it. It is not good enough to allow the BBC and other networks to put on biased programmes without a statement from the Department to protect prison officers. The day after that programme went out, prison officers' children were attacked in schools in Hull because of the wrong impression that had gone out to the public.
The Minister may say that I am being critical, as I am, but I hope to be constructive as well. The first requirement is that a prison such as Maidstone, which is seeking to provide training and, therefore, has a series of prison officers who are well geared to that approach but are deployed on a comparatively low manning level, should never receive prisoners like Ephey Williams. It should never receive great hulking, tough brutes who are likely to make trouble and unlikely to respond to training. There should be far greater screening in the early stages.
I know that that is difficult, but recruiting to the prison service is improving, yet if prison officers are submitted to these dangers and are not protected 1001 by the Department, recruitment will fall off. The degree of professionalism among prison officers is probably higher today than it has ever been. They in turn will become dispirited unless the Department does something to back them up.
I know that Lord Harris has been visiting my constituency to try to reassure my constituents. I am grateful to him for making the visit, but I am afraid that little reassurance came out of it.
I should like the Minister of State to take away from this debate a firm and clear message that prison officers throughout the country are worried about the lack of support that they are getting from the Department and of the fundamental dissatisfaction that Members of Parliament have with the way that the Department is staffed with Ministers. We should like to see the Minister responsible for prison matters seated in this place and not elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and get himself a new job, so that in future we can be beastly to a Minister here and not have to be beastly to Lord Harris at second hand.
§ 4.18 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)The last point raised by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) is one of the weakest that has ever been made, especially from a member of a party that seeks to enshrine the House of Lords. Most large Departments have a Minister who sits in another place. That is right and proper.
I feel that the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the letter written by my noble Friend are misplaced. Indeed, I feel that in that respect his criticism generally is misplaced. I am here to answer for the Department on this matter in this place. Although I do not pretend to have a long and intimate connection with the case, I am in possession of the facts. Far from knowing nothing about the case, I have looked into the matter carefully. Let there be no misunderstanding. Let there be no excuse for Opposition Members to feel that they cannot ask questions on this subject in this place.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly framed his subject generally. He has dealt with it in general although he has referred to 1002 a specific case. I shall deal with both those approaches in their turn.
Prison officers have to deal with some violent men and women. It is not a matter of whether they be a certain colour or otherwise. There is no ethnic characteristic about size. Some people are large and some are small. That happens whatever their colour may be, and for a number of reasons. First, there are prisoners who are predisposed to violence and who serve sentences for violence. Secondly. there are some who have a mental disturbance that leads them not only to disturbed behaviour but unpredictable disturbed behaviour. Thirdly, there are those whose reaction to prison life impels them towards violence. The fourth category is one that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There are some prisoners —a minority—who deliberately set out to make life in prisons difficult and the life of prison officers difficult, through a sense of grievance, or ideology, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us. This has led to a number of assaults and attempted assaults upon prison officers, which run at an annual rate of about 675. Of those. about 235 require the officer to have some sick leave.
On the size of the demonstrations, the largest involved 186 prisoners. This is a serious problem. I do not attempt to deny that or to minimise it, nor do I attempt to hide my extreme sympathy with those officers who, in common with many other public servants, get for their pains and devotion to duty, injuries which make them lose work.
On the other hand, I am bound to say. so that we may have the matter in perspective, that this is not the normal order of events in prison. There are 40,000 or more prisoners in British prisons at the moment, and a tribute is due to the prison staff for the excellent way in which it keeps this large number of people, the vast majority of whom are co-operative and are dealt with firmly but fairly. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at any rate be under no misapprehension; my Department values very highly the work of the prison officers.
Though the work involves inherently a danger we do not rest there. We give the maximum support in a practical way to the prison officers, first, by identifying prisoners with a record of violence and making them known to the prison stall 1003 and, secondly, by rule 43, which is the removal from association for good order and discipline. That is, of course, subject to the approval of the board of visitors if it is to be for more than 24 hours.
Thirdly—and this is a very serious matter—an attempt is made to find out what has caused or what lies behind the disruptive behaviour, because it is no good treating symptoms without trying to ascertain the causes.
The other way in which we help is by seeing that if an attack is made suitable punishment is awarded. There is an adjudication under the prison rules for breaches of those rules, but the more serious cases are referred to the police for prosecutions as crimes. I want to make two points very strongly, and I hope that the hon. Member will not take it amiss if I do so. First, once the Department has referred the case to the police and the prosecution it proceeds as a normal crime. It would be quite improper for the Home Office or any Government Department to interfere with the conduct of the prosecution, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is independent of executive matters.
Similarly, it would be absolutely improper to interfere with the independence of judges who pass these sentences, which they believe to be right and fitting in the circumstances of the case, within the limits of the discretion which is laid on them by Parliament.
§ Mr. WellsI absolutely accept the second point, but I must take issue with the Minister on the first. It is unfair to the police prosecutor if he does not have support in court from people who have adequate knowledge. In the case I cited the prosecution was inadequately backed.
§ Mr. JohnI shall come to that point, because it is important and it needs to be dealt with. In general, however, the conduct of the prosecution has nothing to do with the Executive, and it is right that that should be so.
Most of the assaults are sudden, but where they are foreseen they can be prevented by suitable forestalling action. If there is an attack a prison officer must depend upon the assistance of colleagues 1004 in the vicinity. They have a battery of aids, such as whistles, alarm bell pushes at strategic points in prisons, and a number of UHF radios to summon help. In the event of their being taken hostage they have, of course, been given guidance, but I shall not reveal what that guidance is, because its very publicity would ruin its effect. So, if a warning can forestall action it offers a protection to the staff.
The hon. Member referred to Hull in a number of ways, and it is right that I should deal with it. The problem of large demonstrations is different from the problem of individual assaults. We have to think about these matters, but some things are being done about protecting the prison officers.
The hon. Gentleman referred to biased programmes. I ask him to remember that the Hull prison riot is the subject of an inquiry. It is no use asking a Department of State that has set up an inquiry to rush in and make statements that may prejudice the consideration and results of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman must differentiate between that and the support for prison officers which I have made clear that we afford.
I turn now to the question of Mr. Ephey Williams.
§ Mr. JohnI have given way already. I should like to put on record an answer to this important matter.
In early February 1976, as a result of disruptive behaviour, both the governor and the senior medical officer recommended Williams' transfer because he might commit violence. In the letter that has been censured by the hon. Gentleman—frankly, I find it less full of jargon than many other letters that I have read—my noble Friend Lord Harris made two points, which have been the subject of dispute but which, on checking, have been found to be correct.
First, the senior medical officer did not think that Williams suffered from a form of psychiatric illness, or that he required psychiatric treatment.
Secondly, his transfer was recommended because they were afraid that he might commit violence. Indeed, two days after learning that he was to be transferred to Parkhurst, Williams took a 1005 prison officer hostage and held him for 16 hours. By good fortune the prison officer was not injured. I pay tribute to his coolness and gallantry in extreme circumstances.
Charges were made against Williams for the police to investigate. The charges were preferred, he was tried before a judge, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence that he was already serving.
I have already indicated in a general way that our duty is not to interfere with either the prosecution or the judiciary. However, I shall deal with a couple of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
First, on the question of the information and/or assistance provided by the Department to the prosecution, the prosecution determines what information it wants. The judge asked some information of the Department on the effect of a sentence on remission, parole, and so on. Information on that matter was given which was not in the least misleading to the judge. Nor was it in the least unsatisfactory.
Concerning the rebuttal of any evidence, it is for the prosecution to present its case. The hon. Gentleman knows—I underline this for the sake of completeness—that it is the duty of the prosecution to put the facts fully, frankly and fairly before the court. It is not for the prosecution to make out a course of action. The prosecution must present its case fairly to the court, good as well as bad, in respect of the person concerned. That is what happened in this case. In my view, that is not a matter for criticism of the Department.
The facts, when boiled down to essentials, are that the man's offences were felt serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution rather than charges. They were reported to the police in the normal 1006 way and the prosecution was undertaken in the normal way. We as a Department rendered such advice as we were asked to render, but we in no way interfered with the conduct of the prosecution.
If the prosecution had not chosen to rebut any facts, it would not be for any official in the court to seek to interfere in what was going on in the court. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must accept that the fact that there was no officer or supporting evidence available in the court is not a matter within the scope of the Department, nor is it a matter that should cause him to conclude that the Department lacks the support of prison officers.
The second case to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not mentioned by name, and I shall respect that wish. It involved the loss of remission. I accept that the board of visitors ordered loss of remission, together with 56 days' confinement to cells and loss of privileges.
We wish to afford to prison officers the maximum protection in doing a valuable job for society and a job that inherently involves them in some risk. Society is more violent generally and prisons cannot expect to be immune from that violence. Nevertheless, where possible we are affording them growing protection and more thought is being given to the problem of violence. Under the present rules and the ordinary criminal law, we lay down a code of conduct. It is no part of the Executive's function to interfere with the rule of law. Discretion exists to be used by those who are responsible. If it is used responsibly by those who exercise it, the maximum protection may be afforded to prison officers and to the community.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.