HL Deb 16 July 1987 vol 488 cc1258-60WA
Baroness Carnegy of Lour

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When they expect to be able to publish HM Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on prison disturbances in 1986.

The Earl of Caithness

The report of the inquiry by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons into the disturbances in prison service establishments in England between 29th April–2nd May 1986 is published today. This is the outcome of the inquiry which my right honourable friend announced in another place on 6th May 1986.

We pay tribute to Sir James Hennessy and his staff for the thoroughness of his report. It sets out in full what happened in the six establishments which were most seriously affected and, in less detail, the events in 10 other establishments. The report recounts the background to the disturbances, draws conclusions about their causes, and points up lessons for the future.

No clear pattern to the disturbances emerges. There were different circumstances in different places. The report concludes that the underlying causes were complex and of varying impact. A poor regime of overcrowding in some places may have been an underlying factor. In others the type and mix of prisoners could have been critical.

The Chief Inspector concludes that a number of factors, contributed to the explosion resulting from a mixture of volatile elements in many of the establishments which suffered disturbances. But the catalyst was clearly the industrial action". That was the overtime ban and other action imposed by the National Executive Committee of the Prison Officers' Association (POA NEC) on 29th April. The cause of the prisoner unrest, which in some establishments broke out into full-scale disturbances, was the uncertainty and anxiety among inmates about the real or anticipated effects of the industrial action upon their lives.

In drawing conclusions from these events, the Chief Inspector first canvasses the possibility of a no-strike agreement in the prison service. We shall want to think carefully about this before entering into any consultation with the trade unions concerned.

On the wider issues, as the Chief Inspector sees, the new working and management arrangements, known as Fresh Start, are at the heart of solving some of the key problems for the prison service which he identifies in his report. In particular, Fresh Start will provide a more unified management and a better means of determining manning levels, of securing an agreed and standard level of regime, and of servicing the courts without damaging the internal operation of establishments. These are all points upon which the Chief Inspector makes recommendations.

His proposals on contingency planning against inmate disturbances are also positive and helpful. Steps were taken immediately after the outbreak to review contingency plans at local, regional and national levels. Fresh guidance has been issued on handling major disturbances. There have been extensive discussions with the 'Association of Chief Police Officers, which has issued revised guidelines to the police service on the role of the police in the event of industrial action in the prison system. Contingency plans will be reviewed again in the light of the Chief Inspector's analysis and further action taken as necessary.

More generally, my right honourable friend has asked the director general of the prison service to develop a full action plan for responding to the many recommendations in the report, and he will be reporting to me personally.

The prison disturbances of April last year did great damage, not only to the prison estate but also to the public's confidence in the prison service. They were a traumatic and shocking experience for the prison service itself, staff and management alike. The Chief Inspector's cool and analytical report will serve to set the record straight. But its greater value will be to reinforce the lessons for the future which emerged from those violent hours. We are determined that it shall.