Learmont Report: Recommendations (Hansard, 25 July 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of State yesterday gave details of the steps taken by the Prison Service to improve its performance on security, including measures taken in response to the Learmont Report. The balance of Learmont recommendations is still under consideration and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will report his conclusions in due course.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she recall that on 16th October last year her right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when making the Learmont Statement, said that security had to be the first priority of the service? That being so, why is it that after so many months have passed more than 30 of the recommendations—strangely enough, all those which cost money—have not been implemented at a time when the prison population is rising?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, security has not been compromised in the implementation of the recommendations. Good progress is being made on them. Security has been central to them and has been given its due priority. I had hoped that the noble Lord would have welcomed the progress that is being made. The Learmont Report contained 127 recommendations, many of which have been completed or are in hand and being implemented. Only 27 are still under consideration.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I read the Written Answer given last night, having managed to obtain a copy of it only 25 minutes ago. Is the Minister aware that prison governors are extremely concerned about the failure to implement all the Learmont recommendations which cost significant sums of money, being aware that if anything goes wrong the Home Secretary will blame them and not himself?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is being very disingenuous. He will know that my right honourable friend set up the Woodcock and Learmont Reports, which are inextricably linked. Some of the Woodcock Report is subsumed in the Learmont Report, and vice versa. He will also know that my right honourable friend has been most open about progress; he has been given progress reports throughout and that will continue.
With respect, the noble Lord is not in power. Only a government in power have appraise and reappraise value for money and fully appraise these proposals in order to ensure that the balance of expenditure and the effectiveness of what is being done meet with those who have to pay; that is, the taxpayers.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, the Home Secretary said that expenditure was not to be used as an excuse for failure to implement any of the security recommendations. Is the noble Baroness admitting that my noble friend's allegation is correct and that all the recommendations of Learmont which will cost money have been shelved? Will she circulate a list of recommendations and the amount of money attached to each of them so that we know exactly where the Government stand?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I cannot do that at present because, if he reads the review, the noble Lord will know that some of the recommendations are still being considered because they have cost implications. But money has been spent and money continues to be 1523 spent on the introduction of more rigorous, searching programmes, strict controls on the volume of property allowed by prisoners, control on property brought in by prisoners and many other administrative changes as well as 22 recommendations of the Learmont Report on procedural security, which is very important in the running of prisons; changes in searching policy, more detailed movement control, improved workshop design, the introduction of performance indicators, which are again very important in the running of prisons, the removal of Parkhurst from the Category A estate and 16 reviews of policy, 10 of which are complete.