HL Deb 11 March 1996 vol 570 cc683-92

7.33 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to introduce a prison regime for life prisoners who have been told that they can never expect to be released which will be consistent with their social, mental and physical needs as they grow older.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the risk of causing shock and horror to those few Members of your Lordships' House who are going to stay for this brief debate, perhaps I may start by saying that my purpose in putting down this Question is to get information. It is an old-fashioned way of using Unstarred Questions. I know that they are very often used as a basis for party political debate, but that is not my intention this evening. I want sincerely to probe the Government in more detail than they have been able to give in answer to Questions in the past about the conditions under which full-term prisoners—that is to say, prisoners who have been told that they can expect never to be released—are going to serve their sentence; in other words, to spend the rest of their lives.

Perhaps I may say at the outset two things which this Question is not about. It is not about the issue of whether there should be full-term sentences for anybody. I say that with some feeling because when I asked a Question in July last year, to which I shall refer in a moment, about the conditions under which full-term prisoners should be treated, I received while I was on holiday soon afterwards a telephone call from the Sunday Express. I told them the nature of my Question and of my interest. I told them specifically that they were not entitled to say, as a result of what I told them, that I or the Labour Party were in favour of releasing specifically—because they asked me—Myra Hindley. So what happened? The whole of the front page of the Sunday Express on the first Sunday in August was taken up with a headline saying, "Labour bid to free Myra Hindley". That was an absolute untruth, which had to be, and was, corrected. It was a lesson to me on how innocent questions can be distorted by the press. I have to repeat the nature of my concern this evening in order to make that position clear.

The second matter this Question is not about is whether the Home Secretary should make decisions. That is an issue on which the Labour Party has a view. We have come to the view that the judges, the Parole Board and the prison system as a whole are responsible for the tariff for mandatory life prisoners rather than a politician, the Home Secretary. Again, that is not something about which I am seeking information this evening, because it is not within the terms of the Question I am asking.

In June 1993, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House decided that mandatory life prisoners should be told of the tariff imposed on them. They should he told of any change in that tariff and given the opportunity to appeal against it as well as against the original sentence. After a considerable gap, I followed that up with a series of Questions for Written Answer on 19th July 1995. The helpful Answers that I was given by the Minister who is to reply tonight were that there were 16 mandatory life sentence prisoners who had been informed that previous Ministers had set a whole life tariff in their case and that those prisoners had the right to make representations.

The noble Baroness went on to say, as regards the conditions and in response to my third Question, The Prison Service already provides a variety of regimes suited to the needs of different types of prisoner. These regimes are kept under review. In allocating mandatory life sentence prisoners, individual circumstances, including the need to facilitate visits from family and friends, are always taken into account subject of course to the overriding consideration of security".—[Official Report, 19/7/95; WA31.] It is that Answer which I seek to have extended by the Minister when she replies to this Question this evening.

Two things have happened since then; one to me and one much more publicly. What happened to me is that representations were made on behalf of Roy Hall, a prisoner in Full Sutton Prison. He is 72 years old. He has been imprisoned for multiple murders. I hasten to say that, as I understand it, all the prisoners who have been told that they are never going to be released are multiple murderers and probably sadistic murderers as well. Therefore, there is no question of sympathy for the crimes or lack of sympathy for the victims of the crimes concerned.

Roy Hall is in Full Sutton Prison. He is 72 years old. He has been told that he cannot have a television set, radio or tape recorder in his room because those are the prison rules. He has been deprived of the work that he had been doing for a number of years in the prison kitchens. His letter to me was written in despair because he does not see how he is going to have any sort of self-respect or decent life for the rest of his life. He is an old man. Surely he is not a danger to the public at his age. That was the first and perhaps the more private concern which prompted me to table this Unstarred Question.

The second is somewhat fortuitous in the sense that on Friday the report of the full inspection by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into conditions at Durham Prison was published. It is generally a favourable report, recognising that substantial improvements have been made at Durham Prison between the previous inspection in 1992 and the inspection in 1995 which was the subject of this report as a result of refurbishment and changes of policy. I am the first to recognise that.

The report was written under the then chief inspectorship of Judge Tumim, but is now published in the name of Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's new Chief Inspector of Prisons. The inspectors make points about Myra Hindley, who is a female prisoner in the hospital there following a serious fall. At paragraph 4.31 the report records the fact that after 30 years in prison she was past the point where she felt that she could mix in normal association with other prisoners whose attention was focused on their own eventual release dates.

The inspectors make a number of specific recommendations and outline some principles which they say should govern the treatment of that small group of prisoners, the 20 or so men and women who have been formally told that they will never be released. I think that we can all agree with the first recommendation which states that security should be sufficient to prevent escape. Secondly, such prisoners should he given as much autonomy over their lives as possible; for example, they should be able, if they wish, to cook for themselves. Thirdly, they should be afforded as much privacy as possible, consonant with the need to prevent escape. Fourthly, they should have suitable occupations, including the use of a typewriter or computer. Fifthly, as they are never to be released, they should have as many opportunities to receive visits as possible away from the normal visiting area. They should also have additional access to telephones. Finally, providing that their behaviour merits these privileges, they should have as much freedom as possible to make decisions for themselves about the way in which they lead their lives in prison.

The inspectors couched the report in general terms although in the press release issued by the chief inspector those recommendations are related to a particular prisoner rather than in general terms. The question that I am asking the Government is: how far do they agree with the inspectors' policy recommendations?. I was very disappointed to see the Prison Service press release which accompanied the report on Friday, which stated: The report also recommended that long term female prisoners should receive special privileges. That has been rejected by the Prison Service as conditions at Durham are considered suitable for all female prisoners". My question is: is that the case? Is that the view of the Government as well as of the Prison Service? Is that the Government's view about the other full-term prisoners to whom the report does not refer, but to whom all the considerations which Judge Tumim and his colleagues felt were appropriate in the case in question should presumably also apply?

I do not ask those questions in any spirit of antagonism. I apologise if in referring to the case of Roy Hall I have caused the Minister any difficulty since I did not give her warning. If the noble Baroness cannot reply on that example, I shall fully understand; indeed, I do not expect it. However, generalising to a very limited extent, he is a man of 72; is there any plan for a special regime for people who are, let us say, over the age of 70—that is, over retirement age—who will never be released?

In the more general case, looking at Judge Tumim's recommendations for Durham Prison, what is the Government's view of those recommendations? How do the Government feel about the Prison Service's response to the report? To what extent do they feel, as I do, that there should be separate and special provision—not perks, but simply a recognition of their circumstances—for those prisoners who will never be released?

7.46 p.m.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I am always quick to support any Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, partly out of party loyalty to my esteemed deputy leader, and partly because he is a convinced penal reformer who may not always be free to speak his mind or from his heart as he would wish. Nevertheless, he remains a convinced penal reformer in the eyes of all of us.

My noble friend interpreted his Unstarred Question in narrow terms. Over the years I have introduced a good many Unstarred Questions and noble Lords have spoken to them widely, interpreting them as they wished. I beg leave to do the same tonight. I agree with all that my noble friend said about the need to treat prisoners who have been told that they are to serve a life-long sentence in the way suggested by Judge Tumim in his report.

I return to Myra Hindley, but she is not the only prisoner known to me in that category. Dennis Nilsen is another example. There is no question of him coming out for many years. He has been forbidden to have his music published outside the prison even for charitable purposes. That case bears directly on the Unstarred Question. Why should Dennis Nilsen not be able to have his music published outside the prison, even for charitable purposes and when there is no question of personal profit? He has been told—I believe that this is true of other prisoners in Whitemoor also—that in future he must not have both a typewriter and a keyboard in his cell. He has to choose one or the other. The man has done terrible things, but he is a creative man. He has written an essay on how he became a murderer, which has been published by Ruth Rendell in an anthology on murder. I take him as an example to show that Myra Hindley is not the only person I have in mind.

To be quite frank, discussing whether prisoners who have been told that they will never be released should be treated a little better is rather like discussing whether those who are to be hanged should be entitled to a silken rope. I believe that that was once accorded to an ancestor of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am afraid that in my view the whole idea of one man or woman who happens to be the Home Secretary saying to another human being, "You will never come out; you will die in prison", is obscene, or even worse if such words were in your Lordships' vocabulary.

I do not want to blame Mr. Howard for this. I am afraid that I blame him for many things, but I am not entitled to blame him for this. For quite a while, like most of the public, I had assumed that this was some new ploy by Mr. Howard—not so; this was introduced secretly, slyly, covertly, by Mr. Waddington, now the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in 1990.

It was an unprecedented move in British history to say that someone should never come out of prison. It was introduced in 1990 without the public being told. As far as I am aware, Mr. Howard has not confirmed to the prisoners that they will never come out. No prisoner has been told finally by Mr. Howard that he will not come out. I hope and pray that in humanity and justice, in this case at least, he will bring himself not to do so.

My noble friend mentioned the case of Myra Hindley, so I cannot help but mention it. The press has been quick to mention it in all sorts of ways in the past few days. Let us take the way that woman has been treated. We know that as an infatuated young woman she did terrible things 30 years ago. The Lord Chief Justice gave her a tariff of 25 years. Then secretly, the Home Secretary, the then Mr. Waddington—because in those days it was all kept secret—gave her 30 years. Then still secretly, the then Mr. Waddington increased the sentence to life, meaning life. What possible justification did he have?

If the tariff is supposed to reflect the iniquity of the crime, which is one way of looking at it, how can the crime become worse as the years pass? It is balderdash even to suggest that. Eventually under pressure the tariffs have been published. We have now been told that a number of prisoners will serve life, meaning life, so far as one Home Secretary can say that. Mr. Waddington laid it down, but the present Home Secretary has not yet committed that enormity.

What is the solution? It is one that my noble friend mentioned. It has the party's approval. It is that the Home Secretary should be removed altogether from the process of deciding how long a mandatory life prisoner spends in prison. That is not a way-out doctrine. It applies already to discretionary life prisoners. It is only a question of applying to mandatory life prisoners the same solution as is applied to discretionary life prisoners.

It is a terrible responsibility to cast upon a politician who is anxious, not unnaturally, to secure election or re-election. He or she has the terrible responsibility of deciding whether a fellow human will rot and die in gaol. That is a terrible thought. The solution is obvious. The Penal Affairs Consortium, which includes not just penal reform organisations but prison governors and the Probation Service, has recently come out with that solution.

When people talk about prisoners who have done terrible things many years previously, do they ever think what that person may be like now? No one who knows what a prisoner is like now ever talks in that way.

I call the Conservative Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph, which I enjoy reading, enlightened newspapers. The Evening Standard had a leading article which claimed that whatever the state of Myra Hindley's soul, she should stay in prison until she dies. The Daily Telegraph published an article in a different connection asking whether the present Lord Chief Justice compared well with the late Lord Goddard. The mention of Lord Goddard reminds some of the old-timers in the House of a speech he made 40 years ago in favour of retaining capital punishment. Referring to a man convicted of murder, he said that such a man should be destroyed.

When we say that a man or woman must remain in prison until they die, we are saying that that human being is to be destroyed, as far as it is in human power to do so. It is a detestable doctrine. I only hope that in this case at least Mr. Howard will draw back before he commits that mortal sin.

7.55 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, I listened with interest to both speakers. I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on initiating this useful debate. If his quest is to obtain information, and if he is saying that it is an act of desperation to use the Unstarred Question system to obtain information, he has not written to me asking for the information, because had he done so I would have provided answers to his questions by letter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I did not say it was in desperation. I did not say I had any difficulty in obtaining information. I wanted information to be in the public sphere. This is an effective way of achieving that. I should have thought that the Government would have wished Starred Questions and Unstarred Questions to be in accordance with the Companion to Standing Orders of the House which says that we should be seeking information.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I was not querying that this is not a proper process to use. I am delighted to come to the Dispatch Box to use it. If the noble Lord were to see a video re-run of the debate he would see that he appeared to make the point—I was receiving it rather than that he was saying it—that the reason he was putting down this Unstarred Question was to seek information. Information is something that can be ascertained in a number of different ways.

I started by saying that I congratulated the noble Lord, because this has been a useful debate to hold publicly. The subject of the debate has been prisoners with what I will refer to as whole life tariffs. They are the prisoners told by the Secretary of State that they will not be released from prison.

Before referring to them specifically I should like to remind the House that this is not a new problem. The prison service has long experience of dealing with a small number of prisoners who face spending their lives in prison.

The whole life tariff prisoners form a very small group—18 in all. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set only one of these tariffs. The other 17 were set by previous Secretaries of State. As a result of the decision by your Lordships' House in the case of Doody and others those 17 have had their tariffs disclosed to them retrospectively and have been given the opportunity to make representations. Those who make representations will have their tariffs considered afresh. In the meantime I do not propose to disclose their names.

The 18 whole life tariff prisoners are at present dispersed among 10 prison establishments; 15 of the individuals are Category A prisoners. One of them is aged over 70 and another one is over 60.

Given the small numbers and the range of ages it is neither practical nor desirable for the prison service to provide a special regime for these prisoners. Following the Doody judgment, to which I have just referred, all mandatory life sentence prisoners are now told of the judicial recommendation on the period to he served and the tariff set by Ministers. So whole life tariff prisoners now know exactly where they stand. But their life in prison continues to reflect their particular circumstances and needs.

Like all life sentence prisoners they have a life sentence plan which is updated every year. They take part in the regimes of the establishments where they are held. Those regimes will aim to provide a balanced programme of work, education and training activities to cater for the physical and mental well-being of the prisoners. The work element is an option for prisoners reaching retirement age. If they decide not to work they will be paid as unemployed prisoners, with an additional allowance if they are willing to undertake light work.

Whole life tariff prisoners come within the incentives and earned privileges schemes operating in prisons in the same way as any other prisoner, although community visits are not available to them. They have the same arrangements for visits, telephone calls and letters as other prisoners, to help them maintain family links, which are considered to be important. And where possible they will be located sufficiently close for their families to visit.

The prison service does nevertheless recognise that there is a group, small but growing, of elderly life sentence prisoners, not just those with whole life tariffs. At the end of last year there were 157 life sentence prisoners aged over 60; 151 of them were male and six were female. Of the total number, three were over 80 and another 25 were over 70. The oldest male life sentence prisoner is aged 84 and oldest female life sentence prisoner is 69.

Governors, healthcare staff and prison officers all play their part in providing for the particular needs that go with old age as part of their overall responsibility of care. Sentenced prisoners are offered a full health assessment at least every three years. All prisoners are seen by medical staff when a health problem arises and those in receipt of regular medication will have regular reviews.

The prison service's directorate of healthcare is currently compiling a health strategy for prisoners and staff and has particularly identified the needs of older prisoners among its topics, including a target for women prisoners of cervical and breast screening in line with the NHS. The prisons board should be considering it this May after a period of internal and external consultation and the strategy will contain guidance on particular health needs and on good practice.

Elderly life sentence prisoners have available to them the full range of prison healthcare services. Some prisoners who are ill or infirm may need to be looked after in a prison healthcare centre; or, if an older prisoner has a medical problem which fails to respond to primary medical care within the prison, specialist care can be obtained in NHS hospitals as it would if the prisoner were living in the community. Alternatively, some establishments hold general medical and other specialist clinics run by local NHS consultants at which the prisoner's medical management is reviewed in conjunction with prison healthcare staff.

If a prisoner's condition deteriorates or a new problem occurs, such as a heart attack, the prisoner can be transferred to a local NHS hospital for assessment and treatment. In other cases, where there are problems of mobility, the prison healthcare staff will advise on the most suitable location in the establishment and on any limitations on work or activity. Prisoners over retirement age, as I have said, have the choice of not working in any case.

Governors and prison staff can help by providing wheelchairs, by locating elderly or infirm prisoners at ground level, by giving help in writing letters and so on. A development of particular interest is the special unit at present being commissioned at Kingston Prison, Portsmouth, for male life sentence prisoners aged 60 years and over. An existing accommodation block is being refurbished and will include specialist facilities for older prisoners. Its aim is to help elderly prisoners progress towards eventual release. The unit has 25 places and should receive its first prisoners this May.

The refurbished accommodation will have lavatory and shower facilities suitable for disabled prisoners with poor mobility. It will also provide a degree of separation for any elderly prisoners who are liable to be bullied by other inmates. It is a low-cost scheme and, in my view, a very imaginative one.

The prison service is at present reviewing its policy and guidance to governors on managing prisoners with physical disabilities. All types of physical disability will be taken into account, including problems such as reduced mobility and dexterity arising particularly among the elderly. As part of this, governors will be completing questionnaires on the numbers of physically disabled prisoners, where they are located and what facilities are provided for them. As part of this also the prison service will be working with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the British Deaf Association and the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made an interesting comment about the powers of the Home Secretary as regards whole life tariffs. He made clear his position and that of his colleagues. It disagrees with the view of his Front Bench Shadow Home Secretary who believes that, on balance, the Home Secretary should retain the power to determine tariffs for mandatory life sentences.

The noble Lord also referred to Roy Hall, or Roy Fontaine, as he is often called. As the noble Lord said, Roy Hall is at Full Sutton Prison and a possible transfer to Kingston Prison, Portsmouth, was considered last year but refused. According to the noble Lord, Roy Hall was refused a piece of equipment; I believe that it was a word processor or a typewriter—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it was a television.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I understand that, first, he must be treated consistently with the rules of the prison. He is also party to the privileges system. In the case of Myra Hindley, who has a word processor, that is earnt but bought at her expense. That is one of the conditions of having other equipment in the prison.

Kingston Prison is a Category B establishment wholly for life sentence prisoners and it is where the planned older prisoner unit, which I have already mentioned, is being developed. Kingston Prison is currently being refurbished and the prison service intends to reconsider Mr. Hall's case when that work is completed. Its decision will have to take account, among other matters, of security considerations, of the prisoner's individual needs and, as regards the older prison unit, of the particular purpose and regime there.

I wish to make one comment because there is no one else speaking in the debate to make it. As I have outlined during the course of my response to the Question, as regards the pleading for more comfortable arrangements for older prisoners, in particular for those serving long sentences, someone somewhere must say on behalf of the victim—in the case of Mr. Hall we are talking about four deaths and possibly a fifth which was not put before the court—that they did not see middle age and they will not see old age. There is no question of considering conditions for them in their old age. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that it was obscene that a man or a woman should never come out of prison. What is obscene is the way in which so many lives were brought to a cruel end by those very people. The victims had no chances for any kind of reconsideration of their conditions—

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, the noble Baroness is aware that any pretence of speaking in favour of victims comes badly from that Bench. The Home Secretary was roundly condemned by the law courts for the way in which he was attempting to treat victims.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I work closely with the Home Secretary and I know no Home Secretary who has devoted so much time and energy to concern himself with the plight of the victims. This Government have put in place Victim Support, active programmes to support and counsel victims and positive consideration of victims when tariffs are being considered. That is absolutely right.

In the course of the debate much has been said about making life more comfortable for prisoners. I believe that we are honouring our obligation to those prisoners. We have made a considerable effort to concern ourselves with people who grow old in prison. I am simply countering that point by saying that there are many people who will never grow old—indeed, many of them did not see young adulthood—because of the crimes of the very people about whom we are talking.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Durham, which was published last week. Myra Hindley is subject to the earned privileges and incentives scheme applying to all prisoners and introduced since the inspection took place. She is on the enhanced level of privileges. As such, while on normal location she and other prisoners who have earned the same level of privileges have access to cooking facilities during association time for food which they have purchased. She is currently in the healthcare centre but while on normal location she had the privacy of an individual cell and was able to have additional visits, although those were in the normal visiting area. As I said a moment ago, she has access to a word processor.

The Home Secretary will consider the advice that was given as a result of Myra Hindley's representations about her tariff. They were recently received in the department. The Parole Board has provided the Home Secretary with advice about her case. All that will be considered and when the Home Secretary has reached a decision the prisoner will be told. It is not the practice of the Home Secretary to disclose or to comment upon any advice given to him by the Parole Board before he has reached his decision. The prisoner is aware of the final outcome of the review. The prisoner is also aware of the history of the case, what the judges have said, what the Lord Chief Justice recommends and what previous Home Secretaries have recommended. However, the Home Secretary is not prepared to say when his decision will be made.

I repeat that it is the aim of the prison service to deal with the very small number of whole life tariff prisoners on the basis of an assessment of individual needs, both present and future, but grounded in the individual regimes of the prisons in which they are held. There would not be merit in any attempt to introduce a single regime for those individuals as they grow older. The prison service will meet their particular needs in the same way.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that she has obviously tried to give a helpful reply and has given a great deal of detail. Nevertheless, I urge her to ask her colleagues to reflect on the kind of despair which is likely to be induced in people when they are told that they will never be released from prison and how that despair is likely to be even greater when they appeal and are unsuccessful.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I acknowledge readily that there must be a feeling of despair. But I invite the noble Lord to consider along with me the despair of the husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of the people whose lives have been snuffed out by those people.