Wandsworth Prison (Hansard, 30 January 1989)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Answer to a Private Notice Question on the dispute at Wandsworth Prison which has just been given in another place.
"At 7.30 a.m. yesterday about 100 uniformed staff at Her Majesty's Prison Wandsworth went on strike. Fourteen uniformed staff worked normally. At about 9.30 a.m., under contingency plans, 60 staff in managerial grades from around the prison service were deployed in Wandsworth to maintain order and prison routines. There were inevitable delays and arrangements could not be made for prisoners to take exercise but meals were served and visits took place normally.
"This morning at seven o'clock 197 police officers went into Wandsworth to assist the governor and to work alongside prison staff. 886 During the normal working week many more staff are needed than for the Sunday routine. Although 34 uniformed prison staff are working normally today, peace and order could not have been maintained in the prison without the use of police officers.
"Naturally these events have led to heightened tension in the prison and there have been one or two incidents but loyal prison staff and the police have managed to keep the prison running as near normally as possible.
"Since last November prison officers at Wandsworth have been refusing to take a full number of prisoners. As a result about 50 prisoners have had to be kept unnecessarily in police cells. Talks at national, regional and local levels have taken place over many months in an effort to resolve the dispute. The new working systems introduced yesterday are intended to make more effective use of staff resources and contain no unusual or threatening features. The action of the POA branch at Wandsworth in going on strike is completely unjustified. I call on them to go back to work under the governor's authority forthwith."
My Lords, that completes the Answer which was given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, before the action of calling in the police this morning was taken, had the appropriate dispute procedures been carried out between the Home Office and the prison officers which normally call for continuance of the status quo and then negotiation? Further, is it the case that the prison officers were told that new rotas would not be imposed, as proposed by the governor, for 15 days if the prison officers accepted another 50 prisoners from police cells? If that suggestion had been made, and had been accepted, would not that have aggravated the already dangerous situation which arises in Wandsworth where the official prison population is 1,259 and where in fact there are 1,505 prisoners?
Therefore was not the action this morning of calling in the police in those numbers—men who are, in any event, worthy, but who are not qualified to carry out prison officers' duties—somewhat reckless in all the circumstances?

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement in this House, is he aware that many of us have become increasingly concerned about the apparently never-ending disputes in a limited number of London prisons? Can the Minister confirm that the consequence of those disputes has been to increase the number of prisoners being held in police cells, in both London and elsewhere? Does he agree, in the situation which he has outlined today, that it is essential to give firm support to prison management because otherwise this continuing anarchy in a limited number of prisons will continue?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, raised the matter of 887 negotiations with the prison officers. The introduction of the new shifts had already been delayed for two weeks while more discussions took place. At a meeting last Thursday a further postponement of two weeks was offered, provided that the POA lifted its action of imposing a ceiling of 1,505 prisoners and returned to the occupation ceiling of 1,555. The POA refused that offer.
Following the Home Secretary's meeting with the POA national executive committee on 9th September last, the POA at Wandsworth lifted its industrial action on 18th October. That was in return for a regional manpower review of the staffing levels at the prison taking place. On 11th November industrial action was again imposed to limit the prison population to 1,505. I think that the noble and learned Lord will see that there has been every conceivable negotiation with the POA in order to bring the new system into operation. However, the POA has consistently refused to go back to the occupation ceiling of 1,555.
The noble and learned Lord asked whether the action to call in the police was reckless. I am bound to tell him that it was not a reckless act; it was a proper one which was agreed upon in order to ensure the safety of the prisoners in Wandsworth and that the gaol, as a whole, operated properly. It would have been unreasonable to have allowed the staff to leave without having taken proper action to ensure the correct running of the gaol.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that many people were fed up with disputes of this nature. I entirely agree with him. Prison officers have a responsibility to run the prisons under the direction of the governors of the prisons. Much effort has been expended to allay their fears and to enable their work to be properly carried out. Therefore when such action is taken, which jeopardises not only the prisons but the prisoners themselves—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, rightly says, those people who are remanded in police cells—I think that most people would agree that it is unacceptable. Quite clearly because the prison officers have consistently refused to return to the normal ceiling of 1,555 people in Wandsworth, 50 other people have been obliged to remain in police cells which is not the right place for them.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the executive of the POA is in the middle of organising a ballot of its members urging that the dispute, which has lasted for a long time, should be called off? Is he further aware that the executive of the POA has spent many weeks trying to urge its branches to accept the proposals? With that knowledge, is it not therefore extraordinary that the Government have connived at the situation in Wandsworth where a new governor has come in and sought to impose arrangements on the local branch which were the subject of negotiation with the old governor?
Does the Minister recognise that there are many ways in which the Government could be seen to stand accused of being deliberately provocative at this 888 time? Further, will he also urge upon the new governor that the way out of this impasse is to work with the POA so that when the national dispute is called off such matters may then be dealt with sensibly?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether the action taken was provocative, in view of the fact that a ballot is going to be held on 6th February. I do not agree with him. The POA's national executive committee has recommended members to vote in favour of lifting the national industrial action. We welcome that fact. However, the dispute at Wandsworth has nothing to do with that; it is specific to that prison.
The noble Lord said that he thought the action was provocative. He then asked whether the governor should not learn to work with the POA—if I may have the noble Lord's attention for half a minute, when he has finished discussing the matter with the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. It would be helpful. I am trying to answer his question, but I am quite happy to defer the matter until his attention is released. I am happy to see that I now have his attention. Unfortunately, during that time I have forgotten the question which I was trying to answer.
If I recall correctly, the noble Lord asked whether it would be proper for the new governor to work with the POA. The noble Lord will know perfectly well that this is a dispute which need not have taken place. As I explained to his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, a great deal of work and effort has gone on between the governor and the POA to ensure that this would not be necessary. The fact that the POA has called the dispute is one of considerable regret. Of course the governor will work with the POA—as all governors do—but it is also up to the POA to accept its responsibilities.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly. As the Minister is aware, I represent the interests of prison officers. I must declare that interest. Surely he is aware that this dispute, which has national implications, also has local implications at Wandsworth. Part of the reason for the ballot which will be held is to call off the national dispute, with local arrangements being made satisfactorily. Can the Minister confirm that the police have said that they are horrified at the action of the Government as this is the first time that the police have been called into prisons since 1919?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I shall not confirm the remarks made by the noble Lord. Of course it is undesirable to bring the police into the prisons. I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to realise that, if by the action of the POA those prisons have become unsafe, then it is up to the governor to take action to ensure that the prisons are made safe. It is for that reason that the police were sent in. They were sent in in support of the governor and to work with him; not to take over the prison.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords—

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, the noble Viscount had his head bowed when I was getting up—a rare 889 posture, if I may say so—so perhaps we could delay for a minute returning to the Bill. Going back to the question of numbers, is not the official prison population at Wandsworth 1,259? An addition to that figure up to 1,505 was already aggravating an almost intolerable position. The addition of 50 more made the situation worse. Were those factors taken into account when the so-called negotiations were taking place?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, the occupation ceiling, which is the figure that the prisons are expected to keep and upon which negotiations have been taking place, is 1,555. Recently, the POA has objected to the ceiling being above 1,505. Whereas in October there were 284 prison officers for 1,505 prisoners, there are now 311. There are more prison officers now for the population than there were way back in October.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is not the proper occupation figure 1,259? Is that not the number that should be there, and not the number that is there and will be increased?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I do not know how long we can go on bandying figures about. The noble and learned Lord asked whether that was not the proper figure. My understanding is that that is not the proper figure and that the proper figure is 1,555.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I apologise for not having read the Statement, but will the noble Earl clear up one point? He mentioned the figure of 34 members of the prison staff who remained in post at Wandsworth. Are those members of the Wandsworth Prison staff or are they members at governor grade who have been drafted in to replace those who have come out on strike?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I understand that there may be some of each. About 60 officers on governor grades went in to help yesterday. Some officers have remained at their duty today: some on governor grades and 34 are prison officers.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, is this not a service in which we should seek to have conciliation or abitration and a ballot of the members before industrial action? The Japanese can get it; why cannot the Government get it?

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, a ballot before industrial action is a matter for those taking or contemplating industrial action. This is not a case for arbitration if by that the noble Lord means an official arbitration. He may be aware that there have been a great many discussions over the implementation of Fresh Start, which was generally accepted, by which there would be general alterations in the way in which prison officers' time was used, both for overtime and elsewhere. That was agreed nationally. Obviously locally there have to be discussions between the prison governor and the prison officers. The point here is that the prison officers have of their own volition rendered Wandsworth in a state likely to cause trouble. That being so, police action had to be taken.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, in view of the criticism made from the Benches opposite of the introduction of the police, is my noble friend aware that most people will feel that where one has a prison with a large number of dangerous people in it, if the Government in that situation had not called in the police they would rightly have been subject to censure?

Earl Ferrers
My noble friend is right. This is a thoroughly disagreeable situation which no one likes and no one wishes for. We wish to see the dispute concluded as quickly and as reasonably as possible. Until it is concluded, the Government are right to take the action that they have taken.