HC Deb 07 July 2000 vol 353 cc598-604

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

2.30 pm
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

If today's debate results—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. Hon. Members must not walk in front of the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

Mr. Russell

If today's debate results in one fewer suicide in prison, it will be worth while. However, I am looking for much more than that, as, indeed, I am sure the Minister is. Something must be done to reduce the growing number of suicides in prison, which last year reached a record of almost eight every month.

Suicide rates in prison are 10 times higher than the rate in the community outside. That is a horrific statistic, with which none of us can be content. Far from suicide levels in prison being higher than in the population at large, they should be lower—and they would be, if "safe cells" were installed, particularly for remand prisoners and those with a known psychiatric history. In my opinion, the latter category should not even be in prison in the first place.

In the past decade, more than 600 men, women and children took their lives in English and Welsh prisons. The number of suicides has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. I do not have the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have heard nothing to indicate that levels there are lower than in England and Wales.

Two thirds of suicides are by prisoners on remand—people who have not been convicted of a crime. Yet remand prisoners constitute only about a fifth of the prison population, and many remand prisoners are subsequently found not guilty or given a non-custodial sentence. The Howard League for Penal Reform reports: Remand prisoners often experience the worst conditions in the prison system. Adults are remanded to overcrowded local prisons with limited facilities and over-stretched resources. High numbers mean that prisons can do little more than house and feed these people. It is not unusual for such prisoners to be confined to their cells for 23 hours a day. That is a shocking indictment of our prison system as it relates to remand prisoners.

Today's debate is not about whether we have too many people in prison, although I believe we do; nor is it about calling on the Government to reduce the prison population, although I wish they would at least bring the UK's figures into line with those of all the other countries in the European Community. Today's debate is exclusively about the unacceptable number of suicides in our prisons and about one specific measure that should be taken more seriously than it currently is, so that suicides would become extremely rare rather than commonplace, as, sadly, they are at the moment. A suicide rate 10 times higher than that for the population at large indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with prison life that needs to be addressed.

Improved regimes, more purposeful time made available to prisoners rather than them locking them up around the clock; careful screening to identify those with potential suicidal tendencies; and a determination to stop putting people in prison when a psychiatric place is more appropriate should all help to reduce suicides. However, important though all those measures are, the growing number of people taking their own lives in prison suggests that more needs to be done.

The over-use of prison has led to many vulnerable people being incarcerated. The resulting overcrowding puts a strain on resources, as well as on relations between staff and prisoners, leading to inadequate standards of care for those at risk of suicide. About one third of those who take their lives in prison have a history of mental health problems. The Mental After Care Association contacted me this morning to ask me to bring to the debate the stark message that too many people with mental disorders are in prison, and to praise the work of the joint prison health care taskforce and the joint prison health policy unit in improving health care in our prisons.

Last year, 91 people committed suicide in prison—the highest ever toll. Of these, 56 were unsentenced people, four were aged under 18; 15 were aged between 19 and 21; and five were women. I am advised that by yesterday, there had been 42 suicides in prisons this year.

In 1997, a total of 69 people, 48 of whom were on remand, committed suicide in prison. In 1998, the figure was 83, of whom 50 were on remand. In the vast majority of cases, death was caused by hanging. So far, no prisoner has committed suicide in a safe cell.

The provision for remand prisoners of safe cells, which offer no means whereby a prisoner can hang himself or herself, would result in a two-thirds reduction in prison suicides. If safe cells were more widely introduced in prisons, the figure would be reduced even further. The message is clear: safe cells save lives.

I invite the Minister, in his summing up, to say what it costs the Prison Service, and the public purse more generally, to deal with a suicide. We know from Government figures that the cost of a fatal road accident is £1 million, but what is the cost of a suicide in prison? It is impossible to put a value on the traumatic consequences for the family when someone kills himself, or on the effect that such a death has on the prison staff who have to deal with it. However, if we can establish the true cost of a prison suicide to the public purse, it will put into perspective the extra cost of installing a safe cell compared with a more traditional cell—perhaps a fairer description would be an "unsafe cell".

The Minister will be aware that I have recently tabled several parliamentary questions about safe cells. I should explain that my interest in this new concept of a prison cell is a direct result of being contacted by Mr. John Sadler, who represents one of the companies involved, whose international marketing office happens to be located in my constituency. The company, Velstone International Ltd., does not manufacture its products, of which safe cells are only one line, in Colchester, but I hope that in time expansion may lead to a local manufacturing base.

For the technically minded, I should explain that Velstone is manufactured from a polymer matrix with an aluminium tri-hydrate mineral filler. Velstone solid surface material has the durability and richness of natural stone, yet it can be thermoformed, cut, shaped and profiled just like timber. As a layman, I can best describe the finished product as a single self-contained unit comprising moulded items of immovable and unbreakable furniture. A bed, a table and a chair form part of the structure, as does a toilet and wash basin. All plumbing and electrics are encased in the moulding, and there are no hooks or fittings to which a ligature could be attached.

Other advantages are the significant improvement in cleanliness and hygiene; the fire safety rating, which is in keeping with modern best practice; the reduction of search regime times; the eradication of vermin and bug infestation; and the savings made on expensive resources by water control devices.

Safe cells cost more than traditional cells—I am told about an extra£10,000 per cell—but maintenance costs are much lower. Most important, however, is the fact that so far they have proved to be suicide resistant. They are designed for the 21st century, replacing outdated and substandard equipment—and they save lives.

I understand that Britain's first safe cell was installed about five years ago in Witham police station in Essex. It is not just in prisons that such cells should be installed; police stations and courts should also have them.

I am told that the first prison to have safe cells was Belmarsh in August 1997, followed by HMP Moorland, with two and eight cells respectively. The first major installation was at HMP Swaleside, when 120 were put in a new wing. There is some dispute, however, as to how many safe cells have been installed subsequently, for when is a safe cell not a safe cell?

In response to a written question that I put to the Home Secretary in March, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), referred to proposals to install 576 cells in Rye Hill prison, scheduled to open in January 2001, which will incorporate the key elements of the Prison Service's new improved standard cell or "safe cell".—[Official Report, 13 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 76W.] Would the Minister care to describe what elements of the safe cell concept and design will not be included in the Rye Hill cells? Furthermore, what is the difference in cost between the Rye Hill cell and a safe cell that contains all the elements, not just the key ones?

In a written answer to me on 6 March, the Minister of State said: Private sector consortiums seeking to build and manage new prisons are required to reflect the design requirements of the Prison Service's improved standard cell in all new prison cells. He then added the highly significant words: While such cells may not be identical to those built by the Prison Service, all cells will incorporate the key elements of the Service's design specification.—[Official Report, 6 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 546W.] Were the 1,088 safe cells installed in the last financial year in the privately managed Ashfield young offenders institution and in Forest Bank prison in Manchester in accordance with the full concept and design, or with the lower specification of what the Minister's colleague described in his written answer as the new "improved standard cell"?

I am sure the Minister can confirm that there has been no incidence of self-harm or self-inflicted death in any of the safe cells that have all the elements, so why downgrade the design? Is it because the true safe cell is more expensive, and those behind the private finance initiative prison building and management programme want to cut costs by installing a lower standard of cell in terms of safety considerations?

With an estimated 56,000 cells in prisons—to which must be added many thousands more in police stations, courts and places such as Rampton—safe cells represent little more than 1 per cent. of the total number of cells. Meanwhile the suicide rate in our prisons continues to increase.

I should like to place on record my appreciation of Her Majesty's Prison Service, particularly the suicide awareness support unit, for all that it is doing to deal with this appalling situation. Indeed, there is little doubt that if it were not for that unit, even more people would have killed themselves. It is thanks to the work of those responsible for drawing up a suicide awareness strategy—a partnership between the Prison Service and private industry—that the concept of a safe cell has been developed. That is the good news. The bad news is that too little is being done to install sufficient safe cells.

In the words of the Howard League for Penal Reform: The State takes responsibility for the individual when it sentences them to imprisonment or when it remands them into custody pending trial or sentencing. The Prison Service, as an agency of the State, must then safeguard the health and well-being of each prisoner. With so many prisoners committing suicide, I submit that the state is failing in its duty of responsibility. I know that the Minister is as anxious as I am to see a reduction in, and hopefully a total elimination of, suicides in prison. I contend that the installation of safe cells that meet the full specification, not merely the requirements of a reduced standard, will achieve that objective.

I urge the Minister, the Home Office and the Prison Service generally to use the term "safe cell" and not the term "new improved standard cell." I feel that the former conveys what this is all about, and should thus be used at all times in order to reinforce the importance of this whole matter.

As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I shall be inviting colleagues to consider this matter in detail and to report to the Home Secretary. In the meantime, I invite the Minister to use her best endeavours to increase the number of safe cells as a matter of urgency.

2.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on his success in securing this important Adjournment debate. This is a vital subject to discuss, and I know that, as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, he takes a great interest in these matters, as does the rest of the Committee. I know from my time as a member of that Committee the importance of its work in this area.

I welcome the opportunity to explain developments to improve measures intended to prevent prisoners from taking their own lives. The increase in the number of suicides in prison is a major cause for concern. My ministerial colleagues take a close personal interest in self-inflicted deaths, and fully support the Prison Service's commitment to do everything possible to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of such tragedies. I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on record his appreciation of the good work that the service has done.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), the Minister of State, chairs a round table forum on suicides in prisons, and a twice-yearly meeting between the Prison Service and a range of interested groups. Those groups include the Howard League for Penal Reform—mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—Inquest, the Prison Reform Trust and the Samaritans. That provides a useful opportunity for the sharing of ideas, and the sharing of the aim to work more closely to reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons. The director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, gives suicide prevention a high priority, and is personally committed to a reduction in the number of deaths in custody.

Before discussing "safe cells", as the hon. Gentleman described them, I want to explain the strategy that the Prison Service has adopted, and how cell design fits in. The Prison Service strategy on caring for the suicidal was revised substantially in 1994, but is kept under continual review. The strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach, involving all staff and, indeed, prisoners. It is based on good practice, and is widely agreed to be sound in principle. We are keeping the matter under constant review. Great emphasis is placed on inter-agency working. For example, a very good partnership has been developed between the Prison Service and the Samaritans.

The Prison Service is developing a range of additional measures to enhance current suicide awareness strategies. They include the identification and dissemination of good practice, improving screening and induction processes to identify prisoners at risk more effectively, introducing alternatives to the use of strip-cell conditions in the care of the suicidal, conducting further research into suicide and self-harm, and improving cell design to provide a safer environment. That work is being informed by the recommendations of the chief inspector's thematic review entitled "Suicide is Everyone's Concern", and focuses particularly on local and women's prisons and young offenders institutions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned such institutions.

Instructions and guidance to staff on caring for the suicidal are being re-examined and drawn together in a new Prison Service order to be issued later in the year. It will highlight good practice, and strengthen existing strategies to provide care for prisoners at risk. A new training programme for staff involved in the implementation of the suicide awareness strategy has also been developed, and is currently being introduced.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the part played by the conditions in which prisoners are housed is recognised as an important factor in the Prison Service. However, that is only one element of the strategy that is needed: the main focus of what we are doing is on good staff-prisoner relationships. It is vital to deal with that difficult problem. The Prison Service has developed an improvement on what was known as the safe cell, which offers increased protection. That design has been introduced in some of the newest prisons, and in parts of older prisons where that is practicable.

The concept of the safe cell followed a report, published in February 1997, which focused on the physical environment needed to produce a "safe" cell. Although originally aimed at those prisoners identified by staff as being at risk of self-harm, the cell design requirements specified in the report clearly contribute to increased control, better health and hygiene, lower maintenance, easier searching and improved cell life-cycle costs. As I said, the concept is a comprehensive one.

It was decided that, because of those additional advantages, it would no longer be appropriate to continue to describe the cell as a safe cell, but to regard it instead as the service's improved standard cell—which meets the standards that we want to achieve.

The improved cell design has several features that can assist staff greatly in the difficult task of managing those at risk. The number of potential ligature points, for example, has been reduced as much as possible. A major source of ligature points is the cell window, which has been totally redesigned in the improved cell to minimise the opportunity for ligatures to be fastened to it or to parts of it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that change.

The improved cell will be included in all new houseblocks under construction at current establishments and at new prisons that are being built under the design, construction, management and finance—DCMF—initiative. Reference has already been made to the fact that 120 improved cells have been included in one wing of a new houseblock at HMP Swaleside. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also very much appreciate the fact that, between them, the new prisons built at Agecroft and Pucklechurch have 1,088 cells that reflect the new design requirements. Additionally, the new prisons under construction at Marchington and Onley will similarly reflect those requirements. Invitations to tender for the next two DCMF new prisons will also require bidders to reflect the new standard cell specification.

The design is well regarded both inside and outside the Prison Service. It is the model standard that has been adopted for future development in new prisons. Use of the improved cells also fits in well with the chief inspector's concept of healthy prisons and the work currently being done to develop a safer prisons standard.

I am very pleased to tell the House that the improved cell is regarded as an important piece of design work by the Prison Service. It is very good also that the standard has been embraced not only by the Prison Service itself, but by the private sector involved in the building of new prisons. Many outside bodies, too, appreciate and have responded very favourably to the development.

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the physical nature of the improvements needed to deal with those problems, I am sure that he will appreciate that the experience of both the Prison Service and the outside community is that suicide prevention is not only about such improvements, but can be a rather more complex issue.

Mr. Russell

Does the Minister accept that not one of last year's 91 suicides or one of this year's suicides occurred in a safe cell?

Mrs. Roche

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, although restriction of access to means of self-harm may impact on impulsive individuals, when someone is truly determined to go along that path, they may still find a way to do so, and the experience of the Prison Service is that, unfortunately, that has been found to be the case. We need to take a holistic approach and examine that and other methods. For example, the dangers of over-reliance on physical prevention have been seen in previous use of strip-cell conditions. The Prison Service has abandoned that policy as inhumane and degrading to people who, in some cases, are vulnerable.

What is required is for all prison staff to work with prisoners who may be at risk of self-harm to try and resolve their problems before they feel driven to try to take their own lives. It may be of interest to the House that fellow prisoners have a role to play. The listener schemes that are in place in the majority of prisons enable prisoners to discuss their feelings with a fellow prisoner who has been trained by the Samaritans. That is an excellent initiative, especially in cases in which prisoners feel unable to discuss their problems with a member of staff.

Of course, the prison population includes many people in the at-risk group, including those who have been physically and sexually abused, substance abusers and others, as the hon. Gentleman dwelt on in his remarks. Despite the very sad rise in the number of deaths, it is important not to lose sight of the success stories. We know from our experience that good care and support from staff have saved many lives. That fact does not show up in any statistics so, sadly, it goes largely unreported. However, throughout the country, there are many excellent people in the Prison Service who have worked extremely hard in this area and, once again, I wish to pay tribute to them.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I fully support the work of the Prison Service in this important area. I am very grateful indeed for the co-operation and multi-agency work of many agencies in the voluntary sector and other interest groups. This is a vital area, and we certainly need to do something about those figures. I am convinced that we can do that with the measures that I have outlined and the work in progress.

I shall end as I began, and thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the subject, however briefly, and for enabling me to put on record all that is taking place in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.