HC Deb 10 March 1977 vol 927 cc1644-54
Mr. Speaker

Mr. Merlyn Rees, statement.

Mr. Jim Marshall

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to an article in today's Daily Express by Mr. David Buchan, which apparently has leaked some of the contents of the report upon which the Home Secretary is about to make a statement? I submit to you, first, that this is unfair and insensitive to those directly involved in the inquiry who will still not yet have seen a copy of the report. I would suggest, second, that it is unfair to those other journalists who also received a copy of the report yesterday but who have kept their word and not leaked its contents. Third, and most important, I suggest that this action shows grave contempt of this House, since we have not yet heard the Home Secretary's statement and received a copy of the report itself only an hour or so ago.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

Further to the point of order. I certainly deplore any abuse of the system whereby the Press are given advance copies of statements. There has been an abuse, not only in publishing but because members of the Prison Officers Association have been telephoned with requests for copies. This is a sensitive report. I must look at the methods I use in my Department because this has caused trouble for people who should not have been bothered in this way.

Mr. Speaker

The House will have heard the Home Secretary's statement. So far as I am concerned, it is a matter for the Minister unless the hon. Member is raising it as a question of privilege. If it is a point of order, I must say that the House must be content with the Minister's reply.

Mr. Jim Marshall

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Am I in a position to ask you to look into this question and to see whether it is a question of privilege?

Mr. Speaker

Of course, any hon. Member is free to ask me to look at a question of privilege, but I do not seek to encourage it. I would say that the statement just made by the Secretary of State is probably more helpful than anything that I could say tomorrow morning on this question.

Mr. Rees

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a further statement following up the one I made on 17th January about the case of William Thomas Hughes.

The report of the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service's inquiry into the security arrangements at Leicester Prison and for the escort of prisoners to courts is published today. It describes the information available to the prison staff both within the prison service about Hughes' behaviour in prison custody, including his nine earlier journeys to court, and from the courts and the police. It concludes that this information was not such as would have required him to be treated as a Category A prisoner for whom the highest security precautions would be necessary or whose escort in a hired vehicle would be inappropriate.

The report finds that there was a failure to pursue the search for the knife which was reported missing from the prison kitchen in December 1976 and to make the subsequent information relating to its loss available to the staff as a whole. This was the knife with which Hughes subsequently inflicted serious injuries on the escorting officers.

The report also includes the Chief Inspector's recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of prisoners being able to leave prison with unauthorised articles in their possession. These fall into two groups–17 recommendations for immediate action and eight matters recommended for further review. I have accepted all the recommendations for immediate action, most of which relate to the stricter observance of the existing procedures. The matters recommended for further review are being given full and careful consideration. But, as the report points out, apart from the financial and staffing implications, a number of them would have serious consequences both for the treatment of prisoners, many of them unconvicted, and for the relationships between staff and prisoners.

I have examined whether anything in this report calls for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It suggests that there were errors of judgment but does not in my view disclose grounds for considering disciplinary action: these were failures of the system rather than of particular individuals.

I now turn to the police operations following Hughes' escape, on which I have received a report from the Chief Constable of Derbyshire.

Hughes' escape on 12th January was notified to the police very quickly, and the taxi in which he made his escape good was found abandoned within an hour of his escape. No trace could be found of the direction he had then taken, or indeed of whether he had picked up another car or was on foot. The police had, however, a number of reasons for believing that he would make for Lancashire. The search was therefore most intensive in that direction; in other directions, including that which Hughes in fact took, it concentrated on isolated premises and outbuildings—the sort of buildings in which a fugitive might be expected to take shelter and hope to escape notice. It continued throughout 12th and 13th January and into 14th January, despite worsening weather conditions which developed by 13th January into a blizzard and created considerable problems for the police quite apart from the search.

On average over 200 officers were deployed in the search on each day, and over 400 searches of premises were made. The search extended to farm buildings in the Eastmoor area, and to the outbuildings of the public house; Pottery Cottages were not searched or visited, but then to all outward appearances the cottages were occupied by their usual residents and life was continuing normally. It was not until the morning of 14th January that Hughes' presence there was reported by Mrs. Moran through a neighbour. Then came the chase which ended in Hughes' death.

The deaths of Mrs. Moran's parents, husband and daughter and of Hughes are still the subject of the coroner's inquiry, and I should not therefore comment on those aspects of the matter further.

It has been my intention from the outset to give the House as full an account as possible of the facts about how this tragic case came to happen. Publication of the report by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service gives effect to this intention, but also, by the thoroughness of its analysis and the width of its recommendations, provides a number of lessons for staff at all levels at Leicester Prison, at other establishments, at regions and at the Home Office. The necessary instructions to give effect to the immediate recommendations are being issued at once.

Mr. Whitelaw

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), I would particularly thank the Home Secretary for his arrangements for publishing this report earlier than has frequently been done on other occasions so that hon. Members in all parts of the House have had a chance to read it. That was very helpful and I am only sorry that it should have led to some of the difficulties which have been outlined.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a quick reading of the report certainly confirms that the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service has produced a full and frank report, for which the House is indebted to him? Would he convey to the Chief Inspector the thanks of the House for having done so in such a comprehensive manner? The right hon. Gentleman has certainly carried out his undertaking that there would be a full statement of the whole position.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the House and the public are very concerned about the subsequent police operations? The right hon. Gentleman has given as full a summary as it is proper for him to give pending the coroner's inquiry. But after that inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the Chief Constable's report because lessons may be learned from it?

In regard to the report from the prison, we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intention to implement the recommendations for immediate action. In considering the review by others, which I accept may be far more wide-ranging, will the Home Secretary accept that, although many of us would appreciate the need for strict searches on security grounds, if this were introduced generally it would have far-reaching implications in the prison service?

Mr. Rees

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will convey his thanks, and indeed the thanks of the House, to the Chief Inspector. This is a first reading of the report, and I believe that that further examination of the report will show that it adopts a comprehensive rather than a narrow approach. I hope that everybody will feel that it gives a broad picture.

The police report is a somewhat different matter. I gave no undertaking on that score, and nobody has suggested that I should do so. I have given the House the important aspects of the report, there are details in it which should not be published. I assure the House that the convention is that police reports are not published. I thought that I would answer the questions that people were asking on this matter.

I hope that the report will be read carefully in regard to the question of strip-searching and in other ways. I have give much thought to this matter. Strip-searching, if carried out to a high degree, will radically alter many aspects in the prisons. There are many problems involved. I asked my advisers about this man and I said, "Is it possible that such a man is not Category A?", and they said firmly "No". They said "Unfortunately, there are a large number of such people in our prisons". When hon. Members examine the details of this man's career, they will see that it throws light on aspects of prison discipline which I had not realised.

Mr. Jim Marshall

I agree with what has been said about the comprehensive nature of the report, which I believe is first class. I welcome the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that no disciplinary proceedings will be taken against individuals at Leicester Prison, because it is clear that this was a failure of the system rather than the fault of individuals. However, the report raises a number of extremely disturbing matters, particularly the failure at Leicester Prison of communication between the management and the main body of prison officers there, as well as the non-observance of routine standard prison department procedure. Have steps been taken to rectify this position at Leicester Prison, and have instructions been sent to all other penal institutions in England and Wales reminding them of their duties under prison regulations?

Mr. Rees

In regard to disciplinary procedures, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) keeps closely in touch with the situation at Leicester Prison and he knows the prison officers there. Therefore, I understand why he takes a keen interest in this subject. I think that this was the right decision, and when the House reads the report I believe that hon. Members will agree with me. I repeat that there are disturbing aspects in the system as a whole. We believe that there have been failures of communication, and in other ways. A circular will be issued on the subject. I waited until the report was published because it provides a general peg for discussion on the matter into which the circular will fit, and the matter will be seen in perspective.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I thank the Home Secretary for bringing this report to the House so quickly and congratulate the Chief Inspector on his full and comprehensive report.

May I refer to one matter which has not been dealt with so far in supplementary questions? I am concerned about the transport of what I can only describe as dangerous prisoners. Although the sentence served by the late Mr. Hughes did not relate to any violent crime on his record, we must remember that at least four or five of the offences of which he was convicted involved wounding, assault and bodily harm—clearly indicating that he was of a violent disposition.

Will the Home Secretary lay down that in future when a prisoner with such a history is being transported from prison to court, or from court to prison, or from prison to prison, he will be transported not in a hired vehicle, but in a police vehicle or special Prison Department vehicle which is secure? I do not need to remind the House that four people have lost their lives in this incident and that the life of Mrs. Gill Moran is probably blighted for ever. Is it not worth while for the safety of law-abiding citizens that such prisoners should be transported in secure vehicles?

Mr. Rees

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. He said that the fact that people had died in this incident should be uppermost in our minds. I hope that he will examine recommendation No. 22 on page 25 of the report. He will there see the view of the Chief Inspector. I have closely examined this matter in recent weeks. It is a sad commentary on our society that somebody such as this man Hughes is typical rather than unusual. The difficult question arises whether such a person should be accorded special treatment when taken to the courts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully examine recommendation No. 22 on this point. It is a most important matter and I have firm views about the safety of the public, which of course must be supreme. I am examining the matter in that context.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Does my right hon. Friend agree that prior publication of such a report arises frequently in these matters and makes it difficult for the House to question Ministers carefully about the contents of reports which we are given only an hour or so before the statement is made? Where reports are embargoed for the Press, could not a similar system be adopted for hon. Members so that we may be given notice of these matters?

On the details of the report will my right hon. Friend be careful to keep the balance between dangerous and non-dangerous prisoners? If all prisoners were treated as coming within Category A, the situation in prison would be intolerable, not only for prisoners but for officers. There is a real danger of overreacting to the situation, although clearly this was a case of human error and the system itself probably would have been satisfactory if it had been applied.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Four people are dead.

Mr. Rees

On the subject of prior issue of reports, I have long wondered how to give information in a way that would facilitate discussion. I have tried to assist in a number of small ways. In general, the Press plays fair, and it is important that that should be said, but if there were some way in which hon. Members could be given earlier copies of such reports, I should be prepared to play my part, and perhaps the matter could be discussed. It would make discussion of these matters easier.

There is a balance to be struck between the two aims. I appear constantly to be making that statement in this House. Prisoners could not all be given Category A status, because we know what that would mean in the prisons and it would lead to an impossible situation. It is important that the procedures should be followed. This is cold comfort to Mrs. Moran and to others who have suffered, but if it forces me to think carefully about the procedures, that can only be helpful for the future.

Mr. Rost

Does not the Home Secretary realise that public anxiety in Derbyshire and elsewhere will not be fully laid at rest unless assurances are given? Should he not make the Chief Constable's report public, or at least comment upon it and express his opinion whether he is satisfied with its recommendations?

Mr. Rees

I thought that I had given the impression that I was perfectly satisfied with the report. If I had felt that there were real worries to be assuaged, or if I were concerned about the arrangements, I would have published the report. When I examined the matter earlier in the week, I thought that there was no need to publish it. I have given the House the important points.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I intend to call the four hon. Members who have already stood up. I want not only to save frustration but to ask them to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Stephen Ross

Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues wish to be associated with the compliments that have been made to Chief Inspector Fowler on the lucidity of his report and that we congratulate the Home Secretary on accepting the recommendations?

On the matter of strip-searching, will the Home Secretary say whether he has considered using electronic devices such as those that are used on passengers going through airports? Might that be of help?

Does the Home Secretary also appreciate the reference made in the report by the Governor of Leicester Prison about the imposition of too strict budgetary controls, and is he aware that this is a matter that is felt strongly throughout the prison service? It is thought that there is undermanning at too many important points, particularly during dining and recreation.

What will be done about the fact that there are too many remands in custody? That is a point that comes out of the report. Will the Home Secretary look at the recommendations of the Mountbatten Report about the whole future of high security wings in prisons?

Mr. Rees

I am not sure that the last point is particularly relevant to this case but I shall certainly look at the report and perhaps the hon. Member and I could have a word about it. As to budgetary control, I shall look at that. I am following the matter up but public expenditure cuts do not, as has been suggested, lead to such problems as this.

There may be something in the idea of electronic devices. I do not know whether they would be appropriate to prisons but I shall look into that. I am grateful to the Liberal Party spokesman for referring to the Chief Inspector. It was galling that one of the Press reports gave him a nickname that he does not possess but which is possessed by a criminal. That rubs salt into the wound.

Mr. Crowther

The Home Secretary will correct me if I am misinterpreting his statement, but does he really expect the public to accept that it was merely an error of judgment rather than gross negligence that allowed a man with such a record of violence to be in possession of a knife while in custody, whatever the niceties of procedure may be?

Mr. Rees

I have made my points about disciplinary charges and the failure of the system and I am not justifying that failure. My hon. Friend has trade union experience, and he will appreciate that if the matter were to go further than this everyone involved would have a right to the investigation being started again because evidence given in this way could not be held as evidence in a disciplinary charge. I do not think that that should happen. If my hon. Friend looks at the report again I am sure that at the end of the day he will agree with me that it would be wrong to pick out one or two people. It was a system that was to blame rather than an individual.

Mr. Whitehead

Documentation is discussed in the report in great detail. Does the Minister agree that this is not just a matter of speeding up the approval of these documents? Should not his Department be looking at the need to revise them, particularly Form 293? If Form 293 can describe Hughes, in terms of the prison service, as "A run of the mill prisoner" there is something seriously wrong.

Is the Home Secretary aware that public feeling in Derbyshire was outraged and is not yet satisfied or assuaged on the matter of the search. I can see that there are good reasons why parts of the Chief Constable's report cannot be published in any form, but will the Home Secretary publish the part that refers to the search and the three days following the escape of Hughes, because many people do not believe that it was possible to be certain that all was well at Pottery Cottage by looking at the outside of the house?

Mr. Rees

If my hon. Friend looks at what I have said about the publication of the full report I think he will agree that its publication would not add much to the discussion. I have said what the judgment is on what happened. There is no other information to give, and I have given all the information that I think is necessary. But I shall certainly reconsider the matter because I have an open mind.

As to Form 293, I was worried when I saw what was put on it. But "run of the mill" means that there are a lot of people like Hughes in prison. This is not unusual. I think what my hon. Friend is getting at is the way in which a form is filled in or crossed out because that can lead to an acceptance that would not occur if the form was completed in a different fashion.

Some people come out of prison on parole, or after serving their proper sentences, when everybody knows that they will be back soon having committed another assault. That is a factor in society.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

I welcome and appreciate the publication of the report and the way in which the Home Secretary has dealt with the matter. Does my right hon. Friend accept that on the day that the knife was found to be missing the prison was grossly overcrowded—almost 100 per cent. overcrowded—and the prison officers were understaffed? Is it not true that that applies not just to Leicester but to prisons throughout the country? Does the Home Secretary agree that unless he takes action to reduce the prison population and to put back the public expenditure cuts that have affected the prison officers, we are likely to have more instances of this kind in future and far more disturbances in prisons?

Mr. Rees

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments because I know what he feels about prisons. Hon. Members may have noticed that I have allowed films to be taken inside prisons. I want to do all I can, within reason, to allow discussions on what goes on in prisons. There is also the overcrowding problem. I have been considering what we may be able to do in this respect. Overcrowding is a problem, but I think that my hon. Friend, on reading the report, will see that there was more to this matter than overcrowding or public expenditure.