HC Deb 29 November 2000 vol 357 cc256-62WH
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford)

I welcome the opportunity to debate a matter that is of great importance to my constituents and to those living in mid-Essex, especially relatively shortly after the publication of the latest report by the chief inspector of prisons. It is a cruel irony that today is the sixth anniversary of the death of Christopher Edwards. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who has worked on behalf of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, the parents of Christopher Edwards. I note, too, that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is also present. What goes on in Chelmsford prison is important to other hon. Members in the county and beyond.

As the Minister knows, in the past three and a half years, the chief inspector of prisons has produced three reports on Chelmsford prison. After the publication of the March 1999 report, I was so worried about the situation in the prison and the chief inspector's report that I secured a debate on 31 March 1999. During that debate, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office said:

I hope that, this time next year, the hon. Gentleman is in a position to secure a debate following the report to discuss improvements.—[Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 1070.] Sadly, 18 months later that is not the case. The next report has just come out, and in it the chief inspector states:

If this was the report of our first inspection of Chelmsford prison for a number of years, I would be pointing out that much of what it contained was wholly unacceptable, because it showed that prisoners clearly came last in the priority list for too many members of staff. That it is not the first, or the second but the third report in three and a half years to have said exactly the same thing makes it far worse, because it discloses that, yet again, the Prison Service has failed to address some very significant identified failings to do with the treatment and conditions of prisoners allocated to the prison. I hope that the Minister agrees that that is a fairly damning indictment of the apparent inability of the Prison Service to tackle problems and adopt the recommendations that the chief inspector keeps making in respect of the prison.

For the sake of fairness, before I talk about some of the on-going problems highlighted in the report, I shall mention those important areas in which positive action has been taken since the 1999 report. First, a new reception building has been opened, which is a great step forward; it certainly meets the vast majority of criticisms and recommendations made by the chief inspector in previous reports. Secondly, the cell call bell system, which has been a major cause of concern in the past, has been replaced with a new electronic system which, according to the report, seems to be working well. I warmly welcome that fundamental and important step forward. Thirdly, an enhanced thinking skills course has been introduced, which benefits the prison environment.

However, turning to the recommendations that have not been achieved, the picture is more sombre: 41 of the chief inspector's previous recommendations either have not been achieved or have been only partially achieved. Given that this is his third report, that record is dismal and gives great cause for concern. Time does not allow me to discuss all 41 problems, but I shall draw attention to a few of them, the first of which is the health care centre. In his preface to his latest report, Sir David Ramsbotham states:

The regime in the Health Care Centre is profoundly unsatisfactory where, quite apart from the poor physical standards, the laid down standards for the in-patient regime, particularly for young prisoners, are in no way being met. He continues:

The regime for vulnerable prisoners, from whom all work opportunity has now been removed, is an affront to the Prison Service's Statement of Purpose. Unfortunately, the health care provided is of a standard that would be totally unacceptable to the population outside prison life. That cannot continue to be tolerated.

The report reiterates that previous recommendations for the health care budget to become needs-based have not been achieved. Similarly, the recommendation that the delivery of primary care should be the same as within the national health service has not been fully achieved. To achieve that, the report states, rightly, that there should be increased use of skilled primary care nurses equivalent to NHS practice nurses. I hope that something will be done urgently to address the problem and meet the recommendations.

The report is also quite damning about the failure of an audit of the new system for identifying mentally disordered people within the criminal justice system and adjusting staff levels to meet increased need. Given the sad history of Chelmsford prison in that respect, I am concerned that more has not been done to implement Sir David's recommendations. Apparently, up until April, when the unannounced visit took place, the courts had sent 58 faxes to the health care centre about new prisoners at risk of self-harm. There appears to have been no audit of the scheme and a registered mental nurse was not always available at reception to screen such prisoners. As the chief inspector rightly says, that omission should be rectified, and I trust that it will be.

More needs to be done to minimise self-harm in the prison. Apparently, in the 12 months to April this year, there were 70 self-harm incidents at the prison, including 12 attempted hangings, one of which, tragically, resulted in death. Such a record is not acceptable. The unannounced visit took place more than six months ago and the report has only just come out; if nothing has been done to implement the recommendations during the intervening period, will the Minister ensure that implementation becomes a matter of urgency?

I should also like to draw attention briefly to paragraphs 3.03 and 3.04 of the report, which deal with the length of time that prisoners stay locked up in their cells. Paragraph 3.03 states:

In concluding whether Chelmsford has moved forward in terms of the treatment and outcomes for prisoners, we were disappointed to find that in the 17 months since the last inspection prisoners were still spending too much time locked up. The official routine showed reasonable time out of cell every day for association but, in practice, bore little resemblance to the reality. There had been no improvement since our last visit and the reasons for this, we were told, were mainly attributable to staff shortages. Paragraph 3.04, on a related issue, says:

Conditions for some prisoners, notably vulnerable prisoners and young patients in the health care centre were considerably worse— in other words, worse than during the previous visit by the chief inspector. The report states:

Routines and regimes were still being dictated by minimum staffing levels and cancellations of exercise and association were a regular weekly occurrence. Levels of assault, self harm, use of force and adjudications had not abated. Provisions for education through care and resettlement were inadequate and sometimes worse than before. Both those paragraphs mention staff shortages as part of the problem. Are they due to staff illness, or are too few prison officers employed at the prison to carry out day-to-day operations to an acceptable standard, as defined by the chief inspector of prisons?

Those are just some of the problems highlighted in the report. The question remains what can be done to ensure that the report's recommendations are implemented in full. Given that the report followed an unannounced visit in April, some of the recommendations may already have been achieved. I hope that the Minister can enlighten me in that respect. I do not want to dwell on the past, as little can be gained from trying to attribute blame. I prefer to concentrate on the crux of the problem. Where do we go from here and what can be done to ensure that remedial action is taken to fulfil the chief inspector's recommendations and to enhance and improve the environment of Chelmsford prison, which has been the subject of so much continual and persistent criticism?

I have several questions for the Minister. First, what has been achieved at the prison since the unannounced April visit? Secondly, when the chief inspector returned in April this year, why did he find that so many of his previous recommendations had not been, or had only partially been, achieved? Thirdly, is money the problem? It is easy to blame every problem on lack of money, but I do not want to fall into that trap if it is not justified. Is there a serious problem with funding?

As a constituency Member of Parliament, I appreciate that when we debated the issue in March 1999, the Government made available extra funds to ensure that recommendations on the reception area were adequate funded. However, I want to know whether funding or other factors are responsible for the problems, delays and sloth; if the answer is other factors, what are they? Is there a culture of inertia, or does the Prison Service disagree with some of the chief inspector's recommendations? Finally, what can be done to ensure that the chief inspector's recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible? If the validity of the recommendations is accepted, we need proper pressure and timetables to ensure that they are implemented as realistically and swiftly as possible.

The provision of health care in the prison is a disgrace. Will the Minister give an assurance that it will be improved as a matter of urgency to ensure that prisoners are treated to the same standard of health care that we expect from our own NHS health care? It is shaming that, for a third time, Sir David Ramsbotham and his team have produced a damning report on Chelmsford prison. Sir David has promised to return next May. What assurances can we have that his next report will be a pleasure to read, rather than a litany of embarrassing failures?

12.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing the debate and thank him for the courtesy that he did me in informing me in some detail of the points that he intended to raise. He and several other hon. Members on both sides of the House take a continuing interest in Chelmsford jail. I am glad to see other hon. Members from the county here this afternoon, some of whom have also made representations to me expressing concern about the treatment of their constituents in the prison.

We meet again to consider an adverse report on Chelmsford prison from the chief inspector of prisons on a particularly sad day for the parents of Christopher Edwards. All those in the Chamber will want to extend to them our deepest sympathy and condolences on a day that must be poignant with memory for them. We owe it to Christopher and to others who have died in the prison system, and to our fellow citizens, to ensure that prisoners are held securely in safe and decent conditions, so that the public may be better protected and the causes of offending may be better addressed.

The hon. Gentleman identified several improvements that had been made since the House last considered a chief inspector's report on conditions at Chelmsford. However, hon. Members will ask, rightly, as did the chief inspector, why the Prison Service has

failed to address some very significant identified failings to do with the treatment and conditions of prisoners allocated to the prison. It was in response to just such concerns on the part of the chief inspector about other places that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asked Lord Laming to lead a working group on targeted performance improvement. He did that out of recognition of the fact that the Prison Service has failed on several occasions to deal adequately with problems that have been identified. We are determined that that should change and that the Prison Service's performance should improve at Chelmsford and elsewhere.

One of the most important recommendations of the working group's report, which was published on 27 July, endorsed the way in which the more robust operational management by area managers and the deputy director general of prisons was increasing the service's success in identifying matters of concern and dealing with poor performance. A great deal of work has been done to drive up standards in the Prison Service, including the introduction of performance standards, audits and targets tailored for each establishment. That is to be welcomed. The chief inspector has an important role in identifying prisons that are failing to achieve what they should.

The Prison Service is aware of the establishments that present problems, and Chelmsford is one of them. The area manager and deputy director general identified it as one in which an improvement in performance was not only to be expected, but demanded. There is no doubt that in April, when the inspection took place, the regime was not operating as it should have been. Conditions fell short in several respects. Some progress has been made and recognised, but it has not been sufficiently uniform to give us cause for satisfaction.

However, it is right to say that a great deal of progress had been made since the previous inspection report was published in March 1999, and that progress is continuing. Of the 99 recommendations in that report, 43 had been fully or largely achieved by April 2000. The effort in achieving that should not be underestimated. Problems as extensive as those at Chelmsford, which have arisen over a number of years, cannot all be remedied overnight—indeed, they have not been.

I am grateful to hon. Members and the board of visitors at Chelmsford prison for keeping up the pressure for improvements in standards. The members of that board are drawn from the local community and we are enormously indebted to them for giving their time voluntarily to serve on it. They are, of course, independent of the prison service, so it is worth noting what they said after the publication of Sir David's report. The board states:

The Board of Visitors share Sir David's concern that prisoners at HMP Chelmsford are still spending too much time locked up but the Board is disappointed that Sir David has not recognised in his comments the valuable work being done by staff in difficult circumstances. Since the inspection in April, management and staff have agreed upon a complete reprofiling with a view to improving conditions for prisoners. The board of visitors recognises the steps that have been taken. The reprofiling was necessary and has, as a minimum, protected the delivery of the existing regime. The board went on to say that it looked forward to the extension of activities, including evening activities that the reprofiling should deliver.

During the previous inspection, major concern was expressed about the reception facilities. As has been said, they have been improved. The facilities took up no fewer than 18 of the chief inspector's recommendations on that occasion; 14 have been accepted and wholly or partly achieved, and three are no longer relevant as a result of the new building. In contrast with the inadequate conditions found previously, inspectors found that the area was clean, procedures were in place to ensure that all areas were hygienic and decent. In addition, staff dealt with new arrivals sensitively. A review of reception procedures had taken place and the reception experience had been improved. That major piece of work was implemented while maintaining daily throughput of prisoners.

After the concerns expressed about the cell call bell system and the speed of staff response, it is good to see that, not only has a new system been installed and works correctly, but staff responses are good and the management monitoring of response times is identified as an exemplar of good practice.

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

The Minister will be aware that I secured an Adjournment debate in July on the installation of safe cells, which could reduce the number of suicides involving remand prisoners by up to two thirds. Will he tell us whether there is a programme for the installation of safe cells in Chelmsford prison?

Mr. Boateng

We are working throughout the prison service on the incremental introduction of safe cells. I would expect that to apply to Chelmsford as to everywhere else.

I shall now deal with some of the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. It is important to recognise what has been achieved since the unannounced visit in April by Her Majesty's chief inspector. In terms of health care, new money has been given for a health care centre, which is an important development that involves considerable capital spend on the part of the service. In addition, senior health care managers have been seconded; a project manager for new health care provision has been put in place; Essex health authority and Chelmsford have undertaken a joint needs analysis to provide a blueprint for future action; a steering group chaired by the governor of Chelmsford is to look at current health care provision; transitional arrangements for the move to the new health care centre have been made; the existing health care centre has been redecorated, which is important in improving the atmosphere in which staff are asked to carry out their work; there is daily association for health care prisoners, including TV, pool and board games; provision has been made for education, library and some charity work; and a national taskforce has been set up to improve health care standards.

Those provisions were all undertaken in the context of improved arrangements between the NHS and the prison health service, which were a necessary reform initiated by the Government. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford, who was my predecessor at the Department of Health, will be only too aware of what it has taken to get the NHS and prison health care system working as closely together as they are. That cooperation should have happened a long time ago, but it did not; it is happening now and the hon. Gentleman's constituents should be direct beneficiaries of it.

I shall say a few words about vulnerable prisoners and young offenders. Vulnerable prisoners now have increased access to the prison library; education facilities are provided at least twice a week, subject to further developments in the new year, when we want to improve provision for vulnerable prisoners; and they now share the full range of visits facilities. For their induction, young offenders can be moved on to a young offender wing and they can stay on induction for up to one week to familiarise themselves with the new routines. They can have another trusted young offender as a cell mate under a "buddy" system, which is important in terms of both induction and bearing down on suicide; once off induction, they can elect to share a cell with a friend. We are delivering a further review in respect of young offenders, which will give Monday to Friday evening activities from April 2001.

There have been real improvements in the regime across the board, but we are not complacent. Because it remains important to ensure that we deal better with the transition back into the community, we now have a full-time employment co-ordinator, employment is now allocated on induction, and attendance at work is now closely monitored and reported to the governor on a weekly basis, all of which are important in terms of time out of the cell. There is also improved performance in respect of self-harm: again, there is no room for complacency, but the suicide prevention management group is hard at work increasing the length of visits to maintain family contacts and prisoners now move to activities on a free-flow system; that increases the amount of time prisoners spend on those activities and visits and out of their cells.

A raft of measures has been implemented, with still more to be done. I welcome the on-going attention that hon. Members from the county have paid to the subject and to today's debate. I particularly welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford has given us to address an important issue. The prison has failed in the past, but it has now turned the corner and is improving its regime and the service that it provides to the people of Essex and the public as a whole.