§ The Earl of LONGFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why the use of the top security wing at Durham Prison was discontinued for male prisoners following prolonged criticism; and whether it is the case that the same wing is now used for women prisoners of whom only a few are Category A, the rest having enjoyed conditions of less severity elsewhere.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, the commissioning of dispersal prisons with appropriate facilities for holding dangerous prisoners in conditions of high security rendered it unnecessary to retain the special wing at Durham in use for male prisoners. Since November 1974 the wing has provided a much-needed additional resource for women prisoners who require closed conditions; the régime includes normal facilities for work, education and physical exercise, independent of the main prison.
§ The Earl of LONGFORDMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer will be regarded with total scepticism by all those who know anything about the situation in Durham? I shall not prolong the matter, because I shall have an opportunity to raise it next week. But is he aware that 10 years ago the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, who was asked to look into all these matters by the Government of the day, said,
The conditions in these blocks"—and that included Durham— 664are such as no country with a record of civilised behaviour ought to tolerate them any longer than is absolutely essential as a stop-gap measure"?Is he aware that the conditions were thought intolerable for men, and now they are being applied to women?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend totally mis-states the situation. The situation is that previously there was accommodation for women prisoners at Durham. Then there was this temporary use, so far as male prisoners were concerned. It was formerly a special security wing. That ended in 1971, and in 1974 women returned to the prison. My noble friend says that my Answer will be viewed with total scepticism by all those who know anything about the conditions. That, if I may say so with great respect to my noble friend, is a remarkably arrogant statement. I should have thought that quite a substantial number of people recognise the situation at Durham, which is that we have to maintain a number of women some of whom have committed most serious acts of terrorist violence in this country. Also, there are others who have to be kept at Durham because of the very serious pressure which the whole women's prison system is at the moment undergoing.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, while not in the least expressing scepticism about what the responsible Minister of State may say, may I ask whether he can arrange for a visit to be made to the prison in question, so as to make sure that the physical conditions are no longer such as described by the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I understand that when the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, referred to the situation at Durham it was a special security wing. Certainly, it was holding a number of male prisoners. When women prisoners returned to Durham, a number of changes were made there. But I will gladly arrange it, if any noble Lord is anxious to go there. My noble friend has indeed gone there, as he will no doubt remind us in a moment or two. Undoubtedly, the situation at the moment—and I dealt with this matter in my initial Answer—is that the whole women's prison system is under extremely heavy 665 pressure, as a result of the increase in the number of women who have been sentenced to custodial treatment, and also because of the rebuilding at Holloway.
§ Baroness BACONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I visited Durham when it was a special men's security prison, and I was appalled at that time at the degree of security, rather than at the conditions. It was quite bad. But can he say in what respect it is different today, now that it is a women's prison, from when it was a men's security prison?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, a substantial number of changes have been made. I do not think that I will outline them now, but I will gladly write to my noble friend and indicate in the course of that letter the changes that have been made.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the practice of 90 days' solitary confinement, which was carried out in the men's security prison, still being carried out in the case of either men or women?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, that is an altogether different question.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as this is a matter of very great interest to the part of the world from which I come, whether instead of writing to the noble Baroness he could put a Statement in Hansard, so that we can all see it?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I will do that with the greatest pleasure. I should do it with even greater pleasure if I were answering a Question from the noble Baroness.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, with very great respect, is it not in order to ask a question about whether the system of 90 days' solitary confinement is still being carried on in the women's wing of this prison? Is not that relevant?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, with great respect, with regard to the Question which is on the Order Paper, no, it is not.