HC Deb 24 July 1985 vol 83 cc1071-80 5.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)

With permission, I should like to make a statement on the report of the working group on suicide precautions at Glenochil young offenders institution and detention centre which has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of both Houses. I have also laid copies of the determinations of the Sheriff Principal in the cases of Angus Boyd and Derek Harris.

In November 1984, following a recommendation by the Sheriff Principal, after a fatal accident inquiry, I set up an independent working group under the chairmanship of Dr. Derek Chiswick, consultant psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh hospital, with the following remit: To review the precautionary procedures adopted at Glenochil Young Offenders Institution and Glenochil Detention Centre to identify and supervise inmates who might be regarded as suicide risks; and to make recommendations. I asked Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues to expedite the report, and I am most grateful to them for completing their work by the end of June.

This is an important report on a subject which has generated a good deal of understandable public concern. It makes a considerable number of recommendations, the majority of which I am ready to accept, although some will require more detailed examination. There are, however, a number of recommendations that I cannot accept. As I cannot in the time available today give a detailed response to all the recommendations, I have laid with the report a paper which sets out my initial response to it.

I should remind the House that procedures to identify and care for vulnerable and inadequate offenders, who may have genuinely suicidal tendencies, must be a vitally important feature of any penal institution. Nevertheless, these are a tiny minority of the inmates. We must not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of custody is the deprivation of liberty as a punishment. The inmates at Glenochil are there because they have offended against society and require custodial sentences and rehabilitation. They include many hard and brutal offenders. About half of those in the young offenders institution are serving sentences of between three years and life for particularly serious offences. The authorities at Glenochil have to manage their custody as well as that of a comparatively small number of vulnerable youths.

I wish to refer to some of the detailed points made in the report. The report's broad conclusions are, I am pleased to note, in accord with the recent finding by the Sheriff Principal, who conducted the fatal accident inquiry into the death in April of Derek Harris, that there is no evidence that the regimes operated at Glenochil or the actions of staff were responsible for any of the seven deaths that have taken place since 1981—only three of the seven deaths were determined as deliberate suicides. In submitting the report Dr. Chiswick states that the working group had been impressed by the dedication of the governor and his staff and that the recommendations made in the report imply no criticism of the staff at Glenochil.

The working group acknowledges that, no matter what steps may be taken to prevent suicides, there is no guarantee that these measures will be successful. It considers that the aim should be to achieve a proper balance between procedures that reduce risk to a minimum and yet are compatible with an acceptable way of life in a penal establishment.

The report says that, in relation to the young offenders institution, where all but two of the deaths have occurred, the majority of inmates serve their sentences in a purposeful manner and that the problems are attributable largely to a few inmates who behave aggressively towards their fellows. Such aggression is impossible to prevent, without stopping all association amongst young offenders who mostly serve their sentences without difficulty and cooperate with staff.

The working group criticises the procedures whereby inmates thought to be suicide risks are kept in what is known as strict suicide observation for lengthy periods. I remind the House that those procedures have been in use in penal establishments in Scotland for many years. The procedures involve observation being maintained on an inmate in a cell at 15 minute intervals, day and night. All clothing, bedding and furniture which could be used to cause self-injury may be replaced with clothing and bedding of canvas and with cardboard furniture. No one likes using those measures, but in Glenochil they have been effective to the extent that no inmate has committed suicide while under strict observation. Indeed, the two most recent deaths at Glenochil occurred after the inmates concerned were removed from strict suicide observation, and, in the case of Angus Boyd, the Sheriff Principal commented that death might have been avoided if he had not been removed from strict suicide observation. That illustrates how delicate and complex is the question of caring for these unfortunate individuals. None the less, I accept that the use of those precautions for other than extremely short periods is undesirable in relation to young offenders.

The working group offers advice on identifying possible suicide risks, and makes a number of recommendations on how inmates who are mentally disturbed or vulnerable in some other way may be managed. I wholeheartedly accept the important recommendation of using a team approach involving all the professionals and prison staff to counsel inmates and to minimise the risks of suicide. That is the general direction in which we intend to go in the follow up to the report. Indeed, some of the reports's recommendations have already been met in whole or in part by measures taken since the death of Derek Harris in April. Work has now been completed on a secure hospital facility at Glenochil, consisting of a ward and a single cell, so that strict medical observation can be provided in appropriate cases. In addition, immature and vulnerable inmates requiring a more closely supervised supportive regime are now housed in "D" hall of the young offenders institution, or transferred to Carrick house at Polmont young offenders institution.

Some recommendations have staffing and resource implications, and will require careful consideration. There will also have to be consultation with the staff associations and other interested bodies. Others create problems of adapting existing structures. Recommendations of this longer-term type will need to be examined carefully so that the custody and care of inmates is not put at risk in the short term.

In a number of respects the working group has gone beyond its remit and discussed issues affecting the overall management of establishments and the prison service as a whole which, as a small, specifically qualified group, it was not constituted to comment on. A minority of the working group felt that, such was the aura of suicide permeating Glenochil, the only solution lay in its temporary closure. I concur with the view of the majority, who rejected that idea.

I trust that the working group's findings, taken together with the determinations of Sheriff Principal Taylor, will be accepted by hon. Members and by the general public as refuting any suggestion that the unfortunate deaths which have taken place at Glenochil are attributable to the regimes, particularly that of the detention centre, or the behaviour of staff. There is not a shred of evidence to support those allegations.

My hope now is that the governor and staff of Glenochil will be left to get on with their difficult and demanding task, and that the institution will be afforded an opportunity to settle down after recent events, and to make the useful changes which I have accepted from the recommendations in this report.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I add my thanks to Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues for their work. The important report takes a careful and detailed look at the background to a tragic series of deaths, which cost seven young lives at the Glenochil complex. The Opposition's doubts centre on the nature of the regime and the way in which the system operates, and should not be taken to impugn the commitment or integrity of the staff there.

The Secretary of State's approach, as instanced in the statement, has been rather negative and, at times, sadly, a little unfeeling. There is an important distinction between saying that an offender may go to prison as a punishment and saying that he goes to be punished. The Secretary of State has ignored the widespread feeling that the regime for young offenders in Scotland is inflexible and rigid, and does little to rehabilitate and support young men who, in every sense, are at risk. It smacks of complacency to say that There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the system contributed to any of the deaths, as the Secretary of State said.

Is it accurate to talk of a "tiny minority" as being a genuine suicide risk when, during the past 18 months, 123 inmates at the detention centre and 132 at the young offenders institution have been on strict suicide observation? In 1984, 7 and 10 per cent. respectively of the total number of inmates in the two centres of the complex were under that sort of observation. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called a "tiny minority".

I welcome the specific recommendations on suicide prevention that have been accepted, especially those for more psychiatric support and medical help. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the recommendations made on contact between inmates and their families, which, with ingenuity and imagination, could be put into practice, but which are heavily qualified in the report that the Secretary of State has laid? Most important, will the Secretary of State give some thought to the implied criticisms of the system that can be found in the report? I am thinking of the reference to a lack of a distinct philosophy at the young offenders institution and the suggestion that the regime there has drifted too close to that in the detention centre, the recommendation that there is a need for a policy development unit, and, above all, the revelation, to which the Secretary of State referred but which does not appear in the report. that a body of opinion in the working party thought that the position was so serious that the only possible short-term solution was a temporary closure of the Glenochil complex.

Will the Secretary of State note that the Opposition resent the implication that Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues acted improperly by going beyond their remit? They had a clear duty to state their wider anxieties. Every hon. Member who studies the matter impartially will feel that they did so in a dignified and restrained fashion.

Will the Secretary of State give urgent consideration to recommendation 63 for a review of the criminal justice system for under 21-year-olds in Scotland? It is time that we had a long hard look at the system, which, for example. offers only one option in terms of a custodial sentence between 28 days and 4 months. There must surely be a case for a system in which a court sentences a young offender to a specific custodial period, but in which his placement is a matter for a balanced assessment based on his individual circumstances.

Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that the wider inquiry, to which I have referred and which is the subject of recommendation 63, has not been ruled out? Will he go further and make it clear that he will be prepared to set up such an inquiry because there is so much support in Dr. Chiswick's report for the view that our approach in Scotland to young offenders often lacks sympathy and imagination, and, in some cases, can be counterproductive in practice?

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the staff at Glenochil, which I warmly endorse. They have a difficult task and have done it well. I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my response is in any way negative or unfeeling. It is extremely positive. More than half of the recommendations are already being implemented, which is a quick response.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman in his denial of the fact that there is no shred of evidence that the regimes are responsible for any of these tragic deaths. That has been investigated by the Sheriff Principal on several occasions in fatal accident inquiries. It has been carefully looked for by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in his annual reports, and now it has been examined particularly carefully by Dr. Chiswick and his group. In each case they have come to one conclusion without doubt, which is that, however sad the events, and however serious their causes, the regime has not been responsible for them. We must accept the facts put to us by that series of inquiries.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of greater psychiatric help, and I take his point about trying to improve contact with families to the greatest extent possible. We shall certainly do what we can to improve that.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is a reference in paragraph 6.4 to a minority who took the view that major reconstruction was the only solution to the problems in the regime. However, that was rejected by the majority. We should look hard at that suggestion because to break the regime into small units would be counterproductive to the objective of trying to get young offenders rehabilitated and to undertake more activities generally with their fellows in the institution.

Referring to two other recommendations, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the establishment of a policy development unit. I confirm that we shall look at that carefully. It was considered in the internal management review in 1978 and rejected, but that does not mean that it should not be reconsidered now. I shall certainly do that.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to changes in the criminal justice system. We keep it under constant review. Much change is taking place at the moment following the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 in which major changes were made. Partly as a result of that, the population of young offenders in our young offenders institutions has dropped by about 20 per cent. A halt in that progress while another review takes place would not be helpful. It is much better to proceed on the basis of the suggestions of the Stewart committee and so on, which we intend to do.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh, West)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of the report will be warmly welcomed, particularly the implementation of the majority recommendations to ensure that there is effective teamwork among those professionally qualified to see that suicides do not happen? What is my right hon. Friend's policy towards the minority recommendations, which were not accepted? Do many of them remain under consideration?

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to put his finger on the main theme recommendation in the report, which is that those difficult cases should be dealt with very much by a team of people of different disciplines who can give individual special treatment to those cases. I am sure that that is the right way to go. Some of the recommendations that were not fully accepted are still being assessed for further consideration and possibly consultation with other interests involved. I have not been able to accept a small number of recommendations, and I have made that clear.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Chiswick inquiry acknowledged that the brief that he gave the committee was too narrow for the situation that it was asked to investigate, and that it has rightly put forward a much broader set of proposals? However, does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that his response has been rather selective in picking on things that seemed to support his approach, which appears to have been complacent throughout? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, for example, he has resisted anything that implies spending significant amounts of money on the buildings or the staff?

When I visited Glenochil, I was impressed by the work of the staff and the governor, and by their dedication. However, the fact is that they have to deal with young people who are referred to them. They acknowledge that frequently young people who are referred to them are unsuitable for the young offenders institution. At the back of the report there is a list of 32 cases of youngsters who suffered from broken ankles or some physical or mental disability, making it impossible for them to cope with the regime. Therefore, does the Secretary of State not recognise that a wider inquiry into the whole policy needs to be taken into account, as well as the screening process for young people being referred to such institutions?

Mr. Younger

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the remit given to the committee being too narrow. However, it was a direct response to the suggestion of the Sheriff Principal, who had conducted the fatal accident inquiries and suggested that such an inquiry would be suitable.

When I replied to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) I did not say that I implied no criticism of the Chiswick committee for, in some respects, recommending beyond what it was directly asked to do. It is not a question of criticising the committee, nor is it a question of the committee expecting me not to mention that if I consider that the committee has done so.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to injuries. I understand that those people were transferred from the detention centre. With any group of young people who are active and have problems, there are bound to be some accidents at times. However, the atmosphere of the regime has been applauded by Dr. Chiswick and his committee as humane and reasonable. That is important for everyone concerned, not least the staff.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

I congratulate the committee on the speedy and thorough way in which it underook its review of the procedures at Glenochil and the unfortunate circumstances that led to the suicides. Will the Secretary of State tell the House the size of the minority that recommended temporary closure of Glenochil? How does he intend to approach the assertion by some members of the committee that, because of the aura of suicide hanging over that establishment, it will be difficult for it to return to normality, and it may be left open to the copycat suicide which, unfortunately, is a significant part of that mode of behaviour? As the suicides have occurred and as the report does not completely answer questions about the methods by which they could be reduced, what constructive proposals do the Government have in mind to deal with that aura?

Mr. Younger

On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot tell him the size of the minority, but I refer him to paragraph 6.4.2, in which there is mention of a minority, but we are not told its size.

With regard to atmosphere, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is one of the most baffling, difficult and distressing features of the case. I take it as a serious point to which all the staff concerned must address themselves with great care. It is not easy because the special cases who might be suicide risks require specialised care and treatment. It is important that the team approach to dealing sensitively with those people not only, as I hope, prevents any further suicides or accidents but tries to tackle the aura of suicide, which must be eliminated if the institution is to be successful.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Govan)

The Secretary of State has made a long statement, and this is a complicated and detailed report that we shall want to study closely. It is already clear that the impression that the Secretary of State gave in his statement, that, according to Chiswick, there are no problems at Glenochil, does not accurately represent the views of the committee. For example, the right hon. Gentleman quoted perfectly rightly the tribute that Dr. Chiswick paid the staff at Glenochil, but he did not quote Dr. Chiswick's statement in the same paragraph that we think that the procedures we suggest can only be operated in the context of more fundamental developments at Glenochil. We consider that these are necessary to ameliorate some key institutional problems which we believe to exist. There was nothing in the Secretary of State's statement to acknowledge those key problems.

The recommendations on the broader issues were meant to tackle or at least study the problems. For example, there is criticism of lack of managerial and medical guidance to the staff at Glenochil from the headquarters of the Scottish prison service.

Unless the Secretary of State takes those criticisms seriously, he will find that there will be continuing anxiety about Glenochil and how we deal with young offenders generally in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's statement, with its extremely complacent tone, unfortunately will in no way allay those anxieties.

Mr. Younger

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a long and complex report. Inevitably, I have not been able to respond on every point. My approach is entirely one of wishing to meet, if possible, as many of the recommendations as possible. We are dealing with a highly serious matter which the committee was set up to examine. I hope that it will at least reassure the right hon. Gentleman to know that I do not take it lightly. I should not like anything that I have said to suggest that I am in any way satisfied that everything should be left as it is. The recommendations in the report were constructive. While saying that there was no cause to blame the staff or the regime for the tragic events, it made many constructive responses. I have done my best and will continue to do so to see that the recommendations are implemented.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of guidance to management. He can make a judgment on that, too. I refer him to appendix D, which sets out the guidance that the prison management department has given. If the right hon. Gentleman studies that in due course, he can see whether he thinks that the guidance is deficient. If so, of course, we shall be prepared to consider that.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The Secretary of State said that many people at the institution were on the suicide watch. Is he satisfied that there is adequate psychiatric care for people before they are sent to the institution? In view of the serious events that have taken place, would it not be wiser not to send to Glenochil those who have been identified as having suicidal tendencies?

Mr. Younger

One of the recommendations is that psychiatric facilities should be stepped up. I have accepted that recommendation and we shall do the best we can. Assessments of people before they go to the institution are already made carefully and will be made as thoroughly as possible in the future. Severely disturbed people who go to the institution are treated quite differently from each other. I hope that the team approach will foster individual, sensitive and careful treatment in the interests of patients as well as of everyone else.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that seven deaths out of 7,000 inmates during four and a half years are not acceptable and cannot be regarded as a coincidence? Are we to conclude that the reason is still a mystery? If so, would it not be more prudent to accept the views of the minority and, at least temporarily, close down Glenochil?

Mr. Younger

I do not agree. We all realise that this is a most serious problem, and we have looked in all of the reports and inquiries for a shred of a suggestion that a major change in the regime could have prevented the deaths. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would have acted immediately on any such shred of a suggestion, but there is none, so we must take the determinations of the sheriff in the fatal accident inquiries at face value. They give as complete an explanation of the deaths as is ever likely to be possible — each is different, but none appears to have resulted from the regime. We have to accept the facts as presented to us and to act upon them. To do otherwise would be wrong.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

Is the Secretary of State aware that the most worrying aspect of his response to this important and careful report is his continued misrepresentation of its central message, which is not, as he said, that the regime is in no way responsible, but that there is something seriously wrong? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to paragraph 10.4 of the report which says: The young offenders institution was built as a high security establishment…Less emphasis appears to have been given to planning for the needs of a range of offenders…We consider that Glenochil may have been disadvantaged by an apparent lack of foresight in planning and development. In those circumstances, it is patently misleading to the House and the country to suggest that the Chiswick inquiry has not found matters which seriously require further investigation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the alliance parties fully endorse the recommendation of the Chiswick committee, and of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), that there should be a review of the criminal justice system for under 21-year-olds in Scotland? Will he undertake to ensure that that is put in hand?

Mr. Younger

The hon. Gentleman's first question dealt with two issues. I, Dr. Chiswick, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the sheriffs in their fatal accident inquiries have not said that the regime or the detention centre is perfect and incapable of change, but that we have found no evidence to suggest that the regime caused or contributed to the deaths. That is an important determination. If it were otherwise, we should all be quite justified to take it extremely seriously.

The second point, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring, is that many recommendations require follow-up action. Some are quite sweeping and far reaching. I shall address them in a constructive spirit and accept as many as possible. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have expected a better result than that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the identification of vulnerable people is essential. I am also sure that he agrees that parental visits and parents can play an important part in detecting those who are at risk. May we look forward to the rapid implementation of recommendations 54 to 60? Psychiatric training— recommendation 17 — is an essential ingredient in the detection of those at risk. The same is true for the Kardex system— recommendation 21— which is used in all acute psychiatric units, especially for those prone to suicide. May we have an early implementation of those recommendations?

Mr. Younger

I have accepted recommendation 21. I hope that it will be properly followed up. As for visits, it is desirable to have as open a regime for relatives as possible. However, there are some resource problems such as overcrowding at visiting time. We shall have to see whether we can improve that. We cannot envisage a 100 per cent. open visiting system at all times. I have to decline to implement that part of the recommendation.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

Is it significant that the Scottish Prison Officers Association does not appear to have given evidence? Is it not possible that it would have reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the importance of taking away an offender's freedom and of the possibility of personal fulfilment, self correction and realisation of potential? The fact that a minority of the committee felt that it was necessary to produce their own report and that some went beyond the committee's remit must influence the right hon. Gentleman into considering at least the possibility of a much wider inquiry.

Mr. Younger

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point, although I am willing, when implementing as many of the recommendations as possible, to make further studies or determinations as they appear necessary. The Scottish Prison Officers Association did not submit any evidence officially because it felt that, as it was not represented on the inquiry, it should not do so. There are several recommendations on which I would want to have consultations with it before implementation. I clearly and openly acknowledged in a statement last year that the role of Scottish prison officers involves personal development, personal relationships and rehabilitation, not just custody.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Arising out of my constituency experience, will the individual treatment about which the Secretary of State rightly talked extend to the problem of visiting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised, especially when there are problems of step parents or no parents? Could it be extended in some cases to brothers or even friends? On paragraph 6.5.1 regarding fragile personalities, is the recommendation for existing screening proposals to be improved acceptable, and what will the Secretary of State do about it? In regard to paragraph 9.8, should there be further medical examinations after the first week?

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first question. We would like to extend visits as far as we can, but there must be a progression of visiting during a patient's stay in the regime. We hope that it can be done in a structured way so that there is not too much disturbance. I must be brutally realistic, however. There must be considerable control of visiting because it is a sad fact that almost all of the contraband that is brought into such institutions comes during visiting. That presents a bit of an inhibition to too wide a visiting regime. I accept that screening has to be looked at more carefully, particularly screening before people come to these institutions to make sure that they are suitable for them. We are looking very hard at the relevant recommendations.

Mr. Dewar

I return to recommendation 63 and the possibility of a wider inquiry. The Secretary of State gives the impression in his statement that he practically rules it out of court. He made it clear that he wishes merely to proceed on the present basis. If he will turn to his summary of recommendations and initial responses which have been laid today he will see that in response to recommendation 63 he refers to the Stewart committee on alternatives to prosecution and to certain proposals for intermittent custody that have been made by the Home Secretary. Finally, he says: When these are complete the Government will give consideration to the need for a review. That is considerably more optimistic than what he appeared to say today. In case he should have given the wrong impression, will he confirm that he will consider the possibility of a review? Will he also say when that consideration will take place? We shall want to return to this issue.

Mr. Younger

I apologise if I gave too gloomy a view of that recommendation. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the point I was trying to make was not that I would rule out further consideration of these matters but that we should not stop in its tracks the very good progress that is being made on sentencing. The inquiry arose from this series of seven tragic events, to which we must respond positively in every way that we can. However, we should not ignore the very real progress that has been made in the treatment of young offenders. The changes to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 were widely welcomed. There has been a population reduction of about 20 per cent. In young offenders institutions. This is partly the result of the changes in sentencing policy and the abolition of the borstal course.

I accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I am not saying that a further inquiry may not be necessary but that we should allow the present progress to proceed. When we know the Government's recommendations on the Stewart committee's report on alternatives to prosecution, we shall examine whether a further inquiry is needed.