§ Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the certified normal accommodation of Brixton, Leeds, Liverpool, Wandsworth and Bristol Prisons; and what was the actual population of the same prisons on 15th November 1976.
§ Mr. JohnThe information requested is given in the following table:
Certified normal accommodation Population H.M.P. Brixton 649 1,046 H.M.P. Leeds 592 1,078 H.M.P. Liverpool 1,041 1,628 H.M.P. Wandsworth 1,197 1,585 H.M.P. Bristol 581 562
§ Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of the reports of the Home Office Working Party on Adjudication Procedures in Prisons and the Jellicoe Committee on Boards of Visitors of Penal Institutions; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe setting up of the Home Office Working Party which reported last year was announced by 113W Lord Carr when Home Secretary in June 1973. The report of the Jellicoe Committee, set up jointly—and independently—by Justice, the Howard League and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders also in 1973, was published in May 1975. Although the Jellicoe report went beyond the matters covered by the Working Party, my immediate predecessor was, I am sure, right to judge that the two reports should be considered together in the light of the comments they attracted.
I am satisfied there is much of value in the Jellicoe report. I am sure the Committee was right to conclude that boards of visitors should continue to provide independent supervision on behalf of the community and that they should be careful at all times to preserve their independence. Like the Jellicoe Committee, I am concerned that boards should not be isolated, and that they should continue to maintain a balanced attitude to staff and inmates. I accept, too, the desirability of widening the basis of recruitment where practicable. There are many recommendations in the report which reinforce current best practice and which I shall be glad to commend to boards—e.g., the desirability of frequent visits to establishments, of ensuring inmates are informed of the outcomes of their applications and of showing a proper concern for staff morale. I have no doubt that balanced, outward looking boards have a good deal to contribute to the well-being of penal institutions.
There was one important area where the two reports diverged. The Jellicoe Committee laid great stress on the need for boards—which, it suggested, should be renamed "councils"—to display conspicuous independence, and that to maintain this independence boards must be divorced from executive responsibility of any kind. In particular, it recommended that the boards should not have disciplinary functions.
It was a necessary assumption of the Working Party, on the other hand, that boards would continue to have disciplinary functions. Its report drew attention to the special features inherent in adjudication in a custodial setting and to the consequent need both for knowledge of the establishment in question and for adjudications to be carried out in such a way as leave all those concerned in no 114W doubt as to the impartiality of those conducting them. Against that background the Working Party drew up a standard form of procedure for adjudications by boards, and recommended a number of further points of good practice relating to all stages of adjudication. The Working Party also recommended that arrangements should be made to experiment with the effect of making assistance available to prisoners facing adjudication by boards.
I am sure the Jellicoe Committee was right to emphasise the importance of the independent position of boards, but, after careful consideration and consultation, I have concluded that this independence and the boards' present functions are compatible. Accordingly, I have decided, after paying due regard also to public expenditure implications, that boards should retain all their present functions, including those relating to disciplinary matters. I have, however, accepted much of the general argument in the Jellicoe Committee report as well as the substance of the Working Party's recommendations. The necessary advice will be issued to boards of visitors and governors. I intend also to carry out further consultation about the best way of testing experimentally the provision of assistance to inmates facing adjudication by boards.
I am sure that the boards will continue to find both reports of great value to them in the exercise of their important and demanding responsibilities.