HL Deb 16 October 1995 vol 566 cc600-14

4.49 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on prison security that is being made in another place. The Statement is as follows

"I am today publishing the report by General Sir John Learmont into prison security. I am extremely grateful to Sir John and to his two fellow assessors, Sir John Woodcock and Mr. Gary Dadds, for their comprehensive and authoritative report.

"Let me begin by reminding the House of the circumstances which led me to ask Sir John to conduct his inquiry. In September 1994 six exceptional risk Category A prisoners escaped from Whitemoor Prison. I asked Sir John Woodcock to conduct an inquiry into the escape and I presented his findings to the House on 19th December last year. I also asked General Sir John Learmont to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of physical and procedural security in the Prison Service in England and Wales and to make recommendations.

"On 3rd January this year two Category A prisoners and one Category B prisoner escaped from Parkhurst. All three were recaptured on 8th January. I pay tribute again to the police for that successful operation.

"An immediate inquiry was carried out by the Prison Service Director of Security. As I told the House on 10th January, this immediate inquiry highlighted very serious deficiencies in procedural and physical security at Parkhurst. I asked Sir John Learmont to extend his inquiry to include an independent assessment of the events surrounding the escape.

"The report makes the most serious criticisms of Parkhurst and its management. On security procedures, Sir John found that the Prison Service's own security manual was disregarded and that the most basic security procedures were not observed. Sir John also makes a number of criticisms of the physical security of Parkhurst, including the failure of the Prison Service to provide the prison with the full benefits of technology.

"I am also publishing today the report of the inspection of Parkhurst by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim. The inspection took place in October last year and the report was submitted at the end of February.

"Judge Tumim also makes a number of severe criticisms of the situation at Parkhurst, including weak and inadequate security, unacceptable conditions in health care and drug dealing which pervaded the whole sub-culture of the prison. There was a reluctance by staff to assert proper control in areas such as searching and accounting for inmates. The judge considered the problems were so serious that he wrote to the director general before he even left the prison, with a copy to me, drawing attention to the serious shortcomings he had found. As I told the House on 10th January, I immediately spoke to the director general and asked for a full report. He assured me that all Judge Tumim's recommendations had been implemented.

"Sir John Learmont recommends that Parkhurst should be taken out of the dispersal system as soon as possible and consideration given to its replacement by a more appropriate establishment (paragraph 2.179). I accept this recommendation. Parkhurst has not in practice operated as a dispersal prison since April when all Category A prisoners were removed from normal location. I have asked the Prison Service to identify another prison in the south-east of England to take Parkhurst's place in the dispersal system as soon as possible.

"Sir John's inquiry was not a disciplinary inquiry. Sir John has recommended to me that no disciplinary inquiry should be undertaken into the escape from Parkhurst. He is of the view that such an inquiry could finally break the resolve and commitment of many of the staff at Parkhurst, with the very real possibility that the secure running of the establishment could be severely compromised. He is also of the view that it is difficult to see what a disciplinary inquiry would achieve. In considering this recommendation I have been influenced by the fact that more than one of those concerned will not be staying in the Prison Service. I have therefore decided to accept this recommendation.

"The Learmont report makes it clear that responsibility for the Parkhurst escape was not confined to management and staff at Parkhurst. On the contrary: the report says that, 'alarm bells should have been ringing throughout the Prison Service' (paragraph 2.255), and that many of the ingredients, 'can be traced along the lines of communication to Prison Service headquarters'. In his covering letter Sir John Learmont makes it perfectly clear that responsibilities ultimately reach the level of the Prisons Board and that is where criticism stops. Sir John has not found that any policy decision of mine, directly or indirectly, caused the escape.

"I turn next to the organisation of the Prison Service and its relationship with the central Home Office. It is now some two-and-a-half years since the Prison Service became a next steps executive agency. The decision to make the service an agency was taken on the recommendation of an independent inquiry conducted by Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo. Sir John Learmont does not recommend that there should be any change in the agency status of the Prison Service. He does recommend that someone with wide experience of the workings of agencies should undertake an in-depth study of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Office. This work is under way and I shall report on it to the House when it is complete.

"Sir John's report makes 127 detailed and wide-ranging recommendations. I accept the broad thrust of Sir John's analysis. About half of the recommendations endorse actions that have already been completed, are under way or arc already planned. I will deal today with Sir John's key recommendations and I will come back to the House with a full response in due course.

"A key recommendation of the report is that there should be one maximum security prison to house the most dangerous prisoners in the system. This was a recommendation first made by the Mountbatten Inquiry in 1966 and accepted by the then Home Secretary (who is now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead). But the Radzinowicz Report in March 1968 recommended against it and it was not implemented. Since then the policy has been to disperse such prisoners among a small number of high security prisons. Sir John concludes that, 'the continuous development of explosives and weapons and their availability to criminals and their associates pose a much greater threat to the security of our maximum security prisons than the Service has previously encountered'. He believes therefore that the most dangerous prisoners should now be housed in a purpose designed and built maximum security prison.

"This is a very far-reaching proposal which would represent a major departure in penal policy. The report makes a strong case for it. I have already asked the Prison Service to consider the feasibility, costs and benefits of building such an establishment and report to me in six months' time. The Prison Service will also consider Sir John Learmont's proposal for a single control prison to hold the most unruly and disruptive prisoners. I should welcome comments on these proposals.

"Sir John also recommends a fundamental review of the system under which prisoners are allocated to different security categories according to the threat to the community and the likelihood of escape. I accept that a review of this system should take place.

"Sir John also recommends that minimum physical security standards should be set for each category of prison. Work is well under way on bringing the dispersal estate up to the standards of security recommended by Sir John Woodcock. National standards exist for all new prisons. Decisions on the appropriate security standards for non-dispersal prisons will be based on the outcome of the review of categorisation.

"One particular aspect which I asked Sir John to consider was the extent to which visits should be closed. He recommends that there should be closed visits for exceptional risk Category A prisoners other than in exceptional circumstances. This coincides with the policy I introduced in June this year.

"I turn finally to Sir John's recommendations on the ways in which physical security is enhanced by activities and incentives. I told the House in December last year that the Prison Service would introduce a national framework of privileges and incentives. That framework is already in place and implementation has begun. Sir John recommends that a system requiring early release to be earned, not granted automatically as at present, would be a significant additional inducement to good behaviour. Last week I set out proposals for ending automatic early release and for introducing a system of earned remission.

"But there are two issues on which Sir John and I must agree to differ. I reject his proposal that in-cell TV should be made widely available. This would not be consistent with my view that prison conditions should be decent but austere. Nor can I accept Sir John's proposal that home leave should be more widely available. In my view, the restrictions introduced earlier this year have an important role in protecting the public; and I have no plans to relax them.

"Sir John Learmont has found a great deal that needs to be put right within the Prison Service, spanning leadership, structure, the management chain and the ethos of the service. He says that responsibilities ultimately reach Prisons Board level—and the criticism stops there.

"These comments, coming so soon after the Woodcock Report on Whitemoor, cause me great concern. I must be able to assure this House, and through it the public, that the grave weaknesses in the service which have been disclosed will be put right.

"I have come to the conclusion, with some sadness, that this requires a change of leadership at the top of the Prison Service. The present director general has served in his post for nearly three years. I pay tribute to him for what he has achieved. But I cannot overlook the serious criticisms in the report. I believe the service requires a change of leadership to carry forward the programme of reforms which is needed and to increase public confidence in the security of our prisons.

"The director general has accordingly ceased to hold his post with effect from today. The director of security will take over temporarily until a successor is appointed.

"I believe that this report will be seen as a major milestone in the evolution of the Prison Service. I heartily endorse Sir John's conclusion that: `There is an abundance of excellent people within the Prison Service whose most fervent wish is to do a good and worthwhile job'. "The changes that I have announced today will help them to achieve that goal".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

5 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that lengthy Statement. Let me make it clear from the outset that I have not had an opportunity to study the report, but I have no reason to suppose that Sir John Learmont and his colleagues did their work in anything other than an exemplary way. The fact that they produced 127 detailed recommendations covering a wide range of security issues in our prisons is evidence that their work must be taken extremely seriously.

I feel that there are three levels at which we should consider this report. The first is the particular recommendations. I have one or two questions to ask about them. The second level is the implied re-opening of the issue of the next steps agency status of the Prison Service. The third and, I believe, the most important level for our consideration today is the political responsibility: the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Secretary and, through the Home Secretary, Parliament.

As I said, I have not had an opportunity to study the report or see anything other than the summary of the recommendations which is contained in the Statement. But if the intention is to explore over the coming months the prospects for a single prison for maximum security prisoners, we certainly wish to co-operate with such an inquiry and will be keenly interested in the results of such a review. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how long it will be before such a review takes place.

An important recommendation is on allocations policy. The Home Secretary has accepted the recommendation that there should be a review of allocations policy. My only comment on that is that many of the complaints about bad conditions and lack of security in prisons have arisen because allocations policies have been distorted by overcrowding in our prisons. That is the fundamental reason why, in many prisons—not just Whitemoor and Parkhurst—there are prisoners in locations where they should not be and where it was never intended that they should be. That in itself—I ask the Minister to comment on this point—is a potential security risk.

Is it not the case that the announcements made by the Home Secretary in his speech at Blackpool last week at least raised the prospect of a very substantial increase in overcrowding in our prisons? If our prison population is to increase by the 20,000 or so implied by the Home Secretary's statements, it will be many years before a prison building programme could accommodate those prisoners without affecting not just decent conditions but also bad allocations policy.

I notice that the Home Secretary feels free to pick and choose among the report's recommendations. Where he thinks that they fit in with the stance that he takes at his party conference, he leaps at them; but where they contradict his own judgments—for example, in-cell television and home visits—he rejects them without so much as an attempt at serious argument. He also claims that the abolition of automatic remission and its replacement by earned remission of sentence is an important part of his policy. That is not how I understood his statement last week, which seemed to everybody who read or heard it to be going much further than that in reducing the application of the parole system. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whom I am glad to see in his place, in a devastating letter to The Times today has criticised some aspects of the Home Secretary's speech. So the Home Secretary has accepted some of the recommendations and rejected others. We look forward to an opportunity to have a full debate of the recommendations, which we certainly cannot have now.

The next question is whether it is right that the Prison Service should be a next steps agency. The Statement simply says that: Sir John Learmont does not recommend that there should be any change in the agency status of the Prison Service". But does not Sir John then go on to say that: someone with wide experience of the workings of agencies should undertake an in-depth study of the relationship between the Prison Service and the Home Office"? Does not that imply that Sir John is unhappy about the relationship but is simply reserving his judgment on the issue until he has further evidence in order to help him take a position on it? I ask the Minister, when the review that has been recommended is completed, whether Sir John and his colleagues will be asked to reconvene and submit a report to the Home Secretary on that very important issue.

The final and most important issue is, above all, political responsibility. The Statement says that: Sir John has not found that any policy decision of mine,"— that is the Home Secretary— directly or indirectly, caused the escape". He says not once but twice that: responsibilities ultimately reach the level of the Prisons Board and that is where criticism stops". That is not good enough. The responsibility to Parliament for the Prison Service is the responsibility of the Cabinet Minster responsible for that service. He cannot shrug it off simply by saying that Sir John did not explicitly criticise the Home Secretary.

Let us remind ourselves of what Sir John was asked to do. He was asked to conduct: a comprehensive and independent review of physical and procedural security in the Prison Service in England and Wales, and to make recommendations". He was not asked to investigate the issue of political responsibility. It is politically irresponsible of the Secretary of State to imply, because of the absence of such a criticism, that he has been exonerated. It is the Home Secretary who is responsible for the state of affairs in the Prison Service. It is not good enough for him simply to shrug it off by sacking Mr. Derek Lewis, against whom I have no personal animus at all, and claiming that he has no responsibility.

If it is the case that we cannot secure parliamentary responsibility by our next steps agency system, so much the worse for the next steps agency system. If we can secure such parliamentary accountability and it is the Home Secretary who has been at fault, so much the worse for the Home Secretary. He is not let off the hook in any degree by this report.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I too thank the Minister for the Statement that she repeated in the House today. Clearly, this is a deeply alarming report. The Statement that has been given to the House is very far from reassuring.

The report was leaked to the Daily Mail last week and was referred to on the BBC in its early programmes today and discussed in detail in "The World at One". It seems to me quite inadequate and an offence against Parliament itself that we did not have this report to consider before the Statement was made while others have clearly had an opportunity to examine it in detail.

I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on the question of parliamentary responsibility, the need to debate and the responsibilities of the Home Secretary in these respects. In repeating the Home Secretary's Statement, the Minister said there would be a full response in due course to Sir John Learmont's report. Can she tell the House when that full response is likely to take place? Though she was not able to give an undertaking to the House that there will be a debate, can she say to the House today that she will make representations to her right honourable friend that there should be a debate at an early stage when the response is available, if not before?

We must all hope that Mr. Derek Lewis has not been made a scapegoat in any way. It is too soon to draw a conclusion. I say only that, according to his lights, he has done his best to serve the Prison Service during his period of office and there should be no personal animus against him. Clearly he inherited a situation which was far more difficult than he or anyone else could anticipate and there is every reason to believe that he has not had the support of the Home Secretary in those areas which should properly be his if the next steps agency is to function in the way intended.

In that respect it is interesting to read what is now proposed in regard to the Prison Service. The Home Secretary refers to the recommendations of Sir John and says: This work is under way and I shall report on it to the House when it is complete". The Statement says that Sir John recommended that someone with wide experience of the agency should undertake the work. But who is undertaking the work? Is it a person of independent status or somebody who is responsible to a Minister who may well be less concerned with finding a solution to these problems than finding a solution acceptable to Ministers alone?

Perhaps I may say, without being unreasonably mischievous, that the Minister may like to re-read her speeches of 25th January last. On that occasion we on these Benches raised the whole question of the relationship between the Home Secretary and the Prison Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, dismissed all our anxieties as being of no account. Now, less than one year later, because Sir John Learmont says what we were saying then, there is to be an inquiry. I welcome it. But the noble Baroness should look carefully at the way in which she dismissed what we said at that time as being of no account and matters which in some ways should not properly be the concern of this House.

I note also the way in which the Home Secretary selected the recommendations—in so far as he declared his attitude to them—by choosing those with which he agreed and turning down those he found to be inconsistent with his own policies. Again, a difficult question of responsibility arises. What are matters appropriate to the Home Secretary and what are matters appropriate to the Prison Service? If Sir John recommends in-cell television for purposes he sees as totally consistent with his report on security, it should not be for the Home Secretary to reject that recommendation because—to use a phrase to which he attaches great importance— prison conditions should be decent but austere".

On the question of home leave, Sir John proposes that it should be more widely available, but the Home Secretary says that he has no plans to relax the restrictions introduced earlier this year. That is a selective choice. If Sir John believes that the recommendations are consistent with higher security, then it follows that in rejecting them the Home Secretary is not adopting the course that Sir John believes to be in the best public interest.

I have one further question for the Minister relating to the cost of the proposals that Sir John Learmont is putting forward. On the face of it a large sum is involved and it would be interesting to hear the Minister say today that, whatever the cost of implementing the recommendations, there will be no delay in doing so. I appreciate that the Minister and the Home Secretary, in deciding how much can be allocated and how much the Chancellor may be asked to bring forward to implement the recommendations, must also have in mind the proposals put forward by the Home Secretary in his Blackpool speech a week ago. If indeed it is the case that the restrictions he then indicated (the intervention he made in matters normally left to the judiciary) will result in an increase in the prison population of 10, 15 or 20 per cent., that will be a large addition to the cost of the Prison Service.

Again, it will help us to assess the relevance and the likelihood of the implementation of Sir John's proposals if the Minister can tell the House today what estimates the Home Office has made already in relation to the cost of implementing the proposals set out one week ago by the Home Secretary. We cannot judge the importance of the Home Secretary's Statement and the expectation we have of the implementation of Learmont except against the wider cost of the Prison Service which the Home Secretary now anticipates. I hope that in replying to these questions the Minister will give the House at least some provisional figures. They must be available and they should be the property of Parliament.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I understand the difficulty, with such an important and detailed report, of responding to it in any kind of detail in the time allowed, and am grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said so far. Perhaps I may address some of the points raised by the report.

First, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the timetable for the "supermax" prison. A feasibility study is already under way examining the supermax principle and its impact on the remainder of the prison estate. The Home Secretary expects to receive a report in six months and a decision will then need to be taken as to the way forward.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned also about the impact of the Home Secretary's new proposals on the population within the prisons. That will depend very much on the sentencing decisions of the courts. Of course we expect there to be some increase in the size of the prison population as a result of that change. There is already a substantial building programme. It is difficult to assess the demand for places. Some will be needed but I would expect a significant deterrent effect and incapacitation of those locked up to moderate that.

It is also important not to exaggerate the requirement. It will need to be assessed once consultation is concluded on the details of the proposals. It is worth noting how much work has been done on reducing overcrowding in prisons. The Prison Service has done much to deal with increased population. There have been 22 new prisons since 1980; 11,635 new places have been found and 8,000 extra places at existing prisons. There is no evidence of that having a negative effect on security.

Much has been said about the Home Secretary's responsibilities for policy and his role in all this. I am reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, of the exchange we had on a previous occasion in regard to the role of the Home Secretary. At no time did I dismiss the anxieties people felt about this matter. They are legitimate anxieties and it is a legitimate question. But if he goes back to the records he will find that I was more concerned with the tone and some of the accusations being made by the noble Lord at that time.

There is no doubt that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the Prison Service. I believe he has carried out that accountability with considerable openness and much candour. It is not an easy situation and some of the decisions to be taken will not be easy. But he has never shirked from taking difficult decisions and certainly will not shirk from taking them at this stage. I thought it was entirely characteristic of my right honourable friend to come clean straight away and not to delay on the recommendations. Out of 127 he immediately wishes to reject two and it was right that he should say what they are. He says—and I agree with him—that in-cell televisions should have no place in prisons. He believes that the privileges sought in prisons should be earned and not given automatically as they are at the moment. The changes that he made recently in regard to home leave are beginning to bear fruit and the record is there for all to see.

Reference was made to the agency status of the Prison Service and it was suggested that it had failed. I do not believe that it has failed. With agency status the service is responsible to a far greater degree for managing its own affairs than it was when it was simply another part of the Home Office. Its objectives and its expectations are quite clear and are published. It has a greater degree of accountability both to Parliament and to the public.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about implementing Sir John's advice that there should be a more arm's length relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service agency. Work has already started to look at the relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service agency and my right honourable friend will be considering Sir John's recommendations in the light of the outcome of that work. But while Ministers and the Home Secretary are accountable to Parliament for the running of the service it is important that they have good liaison with the service in order to be able to fulfil that role effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was concerned about accountability. The Prison Service's framework document makes it clear that the director general is responsible for the day-to-day management of the service. However, the framework document also makes it clear that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is to be consulted by the director general on the handling of operational matters which could cause grave public or parliamentary concern. In that sense my right honourable friend is accountable to Parliament as are his Ministers.

I was asked how long it would be before we give a full response to the report. My right honourable friend says that he will place an implementation plan in the Library as soon as he possibly can. I attach top priority to implementing recommendations, as indeed does my right honourable friend, which directly bear on security. That has to be the priority. My right honourable friend has already given another place his initial response to Sir John's principal security recommendations and I have had the privilege of repeating that here today.

I believe that I have responded to at least some of the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked for a debate. That must be a matter for my noble friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels. The House will want to debate this matter at some time and I do not believe that I would be giving too much away in saying that the request for a debate will be received sympathetically.

Questions were asked about costs. I hinted in the Statement that work is being done on costs. My right honourable friend will keep Parliament informed of any detail about costs and any consultation documents issued will include costs.

5.22 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that concern over the substance of the report is not confined to the other side of the House and that, on the contrary, there is considerable anxiety among her noble friends? Will she add a word to what she has just said about the desirability of a debate? I would suggest to her, with respect, that an early debate, during which the views of noble Lords on both sides of the House can be considered in conjunction with the other ideas which are put forward, would be valuable. Although I know perfectly well that my noble friend the Leader of the House shudders when noble Lords ask for a debate—

Viscount Cranborne

Oh no.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

I am delighted to have that reassurance, however surprising. An early debate would be a very great advantage in enabling your Lordships' House to influence the discussions at an early stage. I beg of my noble friend to use her influence and good will to secure that such a debate takes place.

There is only one other point on which I would ask my noble friend to expand a little. She touched on the effect of home leave on some of these issues. I should be very grateful if she would explain whether, as I believe to be the case, there are a very considerable number of offences committed by prisoners on home leave, and if that is so whether it is intended to restrict that development very considerably so as to prevent the commission of those offences.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the substance of the report is a matter of concern to all sides of the House. Therefore, I have no difficulty in accepting that point. Secondly, the request for a debate is noted. I have to pray in the defence of my noble friend the Leader of the House that he is the soul of reasonableness. I know that he is listening to all the requests about an early debate.

My noble friend is right when he refers to the issue of home leave. The protection of the public from people who go free from prison, sometimes on parole or on early release, and commit further crimes is one of the factors which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary took into account. That is an important point. When my right honourable friend announced the new rules governing temporary release from prison, which made the protection of the public of paramount importance, the changes resulted in a 50 per cent. reduction in grant of temporary release from prison. In 1994–95 there were 1,600 temporary release failures. So far this year, with the new changes, there have been only 500. That is a fall of 80 per cent. I believe that the Home Secretary needs to be congratulated on that.

Lord Windlesham

My Lords, I have met Derek Lewis, the director general of the Prison Service, on a number of occasions. He struck me as a conscientious and able man working in exceptionally difficult surroundings. I regret the circumstances of his departure. As chief executive of a next steps agency, the director general of the Prison Service is expected to exercise operational control. But there is ample evidence, as anyone with any connection with the prison system is aware, of a marked reluctance of Home Office officials and Ministers to let go. To some extent that is inevitable. One can see the reasons. The Home Secretary regards his ministerial responsibility for the prisons as a delicate and sensitive one. There is the question of presentation as well. So the report raises a question that has caused anxiety for some time. Is agency status, whatever that may mean, something that can be reconciled with ministerial responsibility, or does it blur the issue of where responsibility lies?

The relationship between Ministers and the Prison Service is now a matter of urgent public importance. I am pleased to hear that it is to be reviewed, although some of the remarks made just now by the noble Baroness make the heart sink. She said that within the principle of agency status the director general is responsible for day-to-day operational decisions until, I paraphrase, it looks as though there are going to political implications. Then the Home Secretary is responsible. That is a circle that cannot be squared.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, my noble friend makes important points. I made the point in the Statement, and I repeat it now, that much has been achieved by Mr. Derek Lewis as the director general of the Prison Service. My right honourable friend meant that phrase when he put it into the Statement. But it is also true that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary cannot possibly ignore some of the very serious criticisms contained within the report. Therefore it was very important that he took those criticisms seriously.

My noble friend referred to agency status and asked whether it can be reconciled with the proper management of the service. What is important—I alluded to this in the Statement and it is work that is in hand—is that the relationship between the Home Office and the service and Ministers and the service is in need of review. That is being reviewed. But as long as Parliament wishes the Home Secretary to be accountable for the service—it is reasonable to expect that no Home Secretary of whatever party could possibly be responsible for the day-to-day running of the service—there has to be a proper review of how those two relationships can be reconciled in a way that allows the service to be run properly and Parliament to be properly accounted to for the running of the service.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the former Chief Inspector of Constabulary, in his first report on this series of episodes, pointed out that it was impossible for people within the service to understand the distinction between operational and policy issues? That was in his report. Is the noble Baroness aware that this problem will not be resolved until the matter is clarified?

In that context, can the noble Baroness answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Who is going to conduct the review? Is it to be someone who is wholly independent of government or an official? It would be helpful to have a response to that question. Is the noble Baroness aware that most of us recognise that prison escapes will take place under governments of any political party? The question is how Ministers respond to those critical situations. If a belief begins to establish itself among prison governors in particular that there will be a relentless search for scapegoats after such episodes, that will do grave damage to the morale of the Prison Service.

One of the unsatisfactory features of the Statement, as my noble friend Lord Rodgers pointed out, is that this report was leaked to the Daily Mail and obviously quite deliberately. It occupied a great deal of the news on "The World at One" today, yet none of us has had the opportunity of looking at the report. The Statement made by the noble Baroness is a summary. For instance, we have no idea why the author of the report suggested in-cell television. It will be extremely interesting to have an answer to that question. As we have not had an opportunity to read the report, we are put in an impossible position. All we know is that the recommendation has been made and rejected because it is not consistent with what the Home Secretary said in a statement earlier this year. It seems to me pretty odd to ask a distinguished man to conduct an inquiry of this sort and simply to disregard one of his principal recommendations in the way that has happened.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, as regards the first point made by the noble Lord concerning the relationship between the Home Office and the service, there always will be a tension. Perhaps I may remind the House that very often when we switch on the radio in the morning or read the newspapers, something quite dramatic has happened in the community; for example, a prisoner has murdered someone while on early release. Whatever the incident may be, it is very important that Ministers seek information from the service in order to account to Parliament or to deal with what is a public safety and protection issue on the day. How that is done gives rise to possible ministerial interference. I notice that there is a passage in the report which refers to a meeting which was being held with the director general within the course of a day and where that meeting was interrupted a number of times by a Minister seeking information. That information was as a direct result of having to come to the Dispatch Box in Parliament and answer questions. There are legitimate reasons when the relationship is under tension. It is right that the matter should be properly reviewed and its outcome reported to Parliament.

As regards the leak, I am almost offended by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that it was deliberate. I cannot tell you the lengths to which we have gone as Ministers—to the point that I had not had a copy of the report until today when I was answering for it at the Dispatch Box—because of the sensitivity of the people involved, if for no other reason. It was wrong that the report should be peddled publicly before we had the opportunity to come to Parliament. I can tell the House that my right honourable friend is also very concerned about the fact that we heard about the report publicly over the weekend.

I am sorry that I did not come to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about independence. It is an important point. I can assure the House that the review will be independent as regards the relationship between the Home Office and the service. The work is already under way. The report will be independent of the service and the Home Office, but I cannot give names. If it is possible to do that following this debate, I shall do so.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, perhaps I may raise a matter with the noble Baroness which so far has not been referred to; namely, the need to reassure those who reside in the area of the prisons concerned. Is the noble Baroness aware that one of the main features of prison policies is to reassure local residents who live in the area of these establishments? What measures are being taken to reassure in particular the residents on the Isle of Wight? Am I correct in saying that on the island there is not one institution but three, built and running side-by-side, with a very high number of dangerous prisoners contained within them? Has not the time come to reconsider the policy of concentrating so many high risk prisoners in such a small geographical area? Can the Minister reassure people, particularly those living on the Isle of Wight, that the Government will treat this as a matter of great urgency? I have to say to the Minister that many of the aspects to which she has referred today are long term and not short term in terms of reassuring the local population.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I regard that as an extremely important point. If the noble Lord recalls the Statement, I made it clear that Category A prisoners were removed some time ago from that particular prison. There has been a policy of dispersing the most serious criminals to a number of locations. That is the very policy being criticised by Sir John Learmont in his report. Sir John is suggesting that there should be one geographical location but in a maximum security prison specially designed to contain the prisoners and protect the public.

As regards the important point made by the noble Lord about the residents of the Isle of Wight, I can certainly give an assurance that they are safe. Again, referring to the Statement, many of the changes announced by Woodcock needed to be made quickly. They are almost all complete. That work is very much in hand and it is continuing apace. As I say, for the moment, Category A prisoners are not on the Isle of Wight.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with which the Minister agreed; namely, the repeated leaks to the media and the press before Parliament is informed. We hear morning after morning that the BBC has acquired information followed by discussion about a matter which should be first brought before Parliament. It cannot be beyond the ability of intelligence within the Government to discover how that is happening. It is outrageously unsatisfactory from the parliamentary point of view. It is regular; it is not an occasional happening. We have to register the fact that the situation is totally unsatisfactory and that action should be taken to stop it.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. It is an important point. My heart sinks when we go to such lengths to keep a matter confidential until Parliament has actually heard the case. I am as disturbed as the noble Baroness. One of the difficulties with this kind of report is that a very large number of people have been interviewed as a result of it and have made statements to Sir John in the course of the investigation. Consistent with convention now, a large number of Salmon letters were sent out to people who have been interviewed as part of the investigations, and perhaps critically. Therefore, they are given the opportunity to respond to the criticism and to any inaccuracies which they pick up in the report. They are then considered by Sir John before the report comes to Parliament. So it is very difficult to pin down that someone who has been party to the inquiry and who has a fairly good idea of what is going to be contained in the report has not actually pre-empted the announcement. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness's basic point.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and reiterate the calls made from other parts of the House for a debate on the report. The question of a "supermax" prison—I believe that that is how the Minister described it—needs careful consideration. That will not form part of my questions this afternoon, but we shall obviously need a debate on the subject.

My question is: what alternative steps will be taken to protect prisoners' families, prison staff and the community at large, given that the Government have apparently taken significant decisions that fly in the face of the report's recommendations? I refer particularly to in-cell television and home leave. I think that we would all accept the validity of having in-cell television in order to prevent idle minds getting up to mischief. I am sure that we would all also accept the importance of home visits when it comes to reintegrating prisoners into society and family life. Therefore, what alternatives to in-cell television and home leave are to be provided?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, on the noble Lord's final point, many privileges can be earned in prison. I have visited a number of prisons where the system of earning privileges works well. I have visited a prison in the Channel Islands where prisoners start with a basic level of provision and almost everything they receive is earned by good behaviour in the prison. However, those privileges do not extend beyond radios in the cells. They do not extend to television. The principle of privileges having to be earned as opposed to being given automatically seems an inducement to good behaviour. If prisoners are better behaved, that makes life easier for those running the prisons. We know to our cost—this is behind much of the Parkhurst report—that in the end the policy of appeasement never works.

I hope that your Lordships will accept a correction of something that I said earlier. I must put this on the record. In answer to an earlier question, I said that there were no Category A prisoners on the Isle of Wight. I am told that there are no Category A prisoners in normal locations but that there are some in the segregation and psychiatric units at Parkhurst which are secure. Therefore, as I was seeking to say, residents of the Isle of Wight can sleep safe in their beds. I hope that your Lordships will accept that correction.

Viscount Tonypandy

My Lords, may I submit—

Noble Lords

Time!