Prison Reform Trust: Draft Legislation (Hansard, 24 June 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, the Government welcome the document as a useful contribution to the debate on penal policy.

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, I notice the giggling opposite. So I understand that there is a new 594 regulation from the Benches opposite: to make an Answer as short and as inconclusive as possible. However, perhaps I may ask a question which will receive a more satisfactory answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that the Bill is an attempt to give effect to the findings of the Woolf Committee? Is she further aware that the Woolf Report was recommended to this House in July 1991? Do the Government still stand by the findings of the Woolf Committee?
Will the noble Baroness accept a supplementary question? Does she agree that we should congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on becoming Master of the Rolls? I certainly hear no dissent from that. Does she further agree that we should congratulate Judge Tumim, who is associated with that report, on having been knighted? There seems to be even less dissent from that. In my eyes he is a hero of our times. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the new chief inspector will not be deprived of his knighthood because of being reprimanded by the Home Secretary?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, this is a happy occasion. First, let me defend my colleagues who were amused at my reply. In my reply I welcomed the report and they were rather amused at what they saw to be some hesitancy on the part of the noble Earl, who was rather surprised that I had welcomed the report. I wholeheartedly and very warmly congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on his new appointment. Equally, I warmly congratulate Judge Tumim on his knighthood.
I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for not speculating on any award that the present chief inspector may or may not receive. He is very new in that particular role and that matter is for others to discuss.
As for the Question on the Order Paper, the Woolf Report made 12 key recommendations. All but one of those recommendations were accepted and formed the basis of the programme for the White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice. The Prison Service has already implemented most of the commitments made. There is no question of either Ministers or the Prison Service back-tracking on progress already made. Both the Woolf Report and the 1991 White Paper identified the need for a proper balance between essential security measures and effective and constructive regimes. That remains the Prison Service policy today.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, without seeking to pass judgment on a complex Bill produced by the Prison Reform Trust, does not the Minister agree that the section on the prison ombudsman, if enacted, would have been helpful in avoiding the intensive and lengthy debate which has had to take place about the terms of reference of the prison ombudsman in recent months? It might even have avoided the reported dressing down of the prison ombudsman by the Home Secretary only last week.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, it has always been our intention to review the situation once the post has been in place for a sufficient period. We still intend to consider putting it on a statutory basis. Perhaps I may also say that the proposals seek to make the 595 ombudsman's recommendations binding on the Prison Service in respect of disciplinary adjudications, and that would be unacceptable. Ombudsmen operate on the basis of recommendations and any attempt to make their findings binding runs counter to that principle.

§ Lord Hylton
My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that the present trend of government penal policy is all too likely to be a disaster for those in prison and lead to frustration for prison staff? Will the Government consider, instead of building many new prisons, providing special care for those at risk of offending, especially when they are still children, and also treatment for first offenders?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord's first statement. I believe that protection of the public and suitable punishment to fit the crime is at the centre of our policy and we have no intention of changing that. There is a consultative paper out in regard to sentencing and the noble Lord will have a full opportunity both to respond to that and to consider any legislation which may flow from it.
The other point made by the noble Lord is important in relation to how much we can do and whether we can do more to address those who are at risk of offending. A great deal of my time is spent, through the Probation Service and the voluntary sector, doing what we can to make sure that young people do not get into trouble in the first place. I wholeheartedly agree that it is an important part of the policy.

§ The Earl of Longford
My Lords, how does the noble Baroness square what she has told us today with the fact that in a recent debate initiated by the Lord Chief Justice, five former Conservative Home Office Ministers denounced Howardism?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, we live in a democracy and people are entitled to their views. However, I believe the Home Secretary has been extremely courageous in that respect. He believes that the protection of the public is essential and that the punishment should fit the crime. This is an important White Paper which is out for consultation and no doubt the noble Earl will respond to it in his customary way.