HC Deb 20 May 1993 vol 225 c239W
Ms Ruddock

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male staff members in each of the female prisons has been subject to official complaint for sexual misconduct in each of the past five years; and in how many cases formal disciplinary action was taken.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from Mr. D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 May 1993: The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about complaints of sexual misconduct made against male staff working in women's prisons in each of the past five years. Complaints of harassment or other sexual misconduct, whether made by members of staff or inmates, are dealt with in the first instance at the establishment. If formal disciplinary charges are brought, they may be resolved at the establishment under powers delegated to the governor. Not all records of such cases are retained locally; in fairness to the accused, papers relating to complaints which are dismissed or where the accused in found innocent are destroyed. Only those cases which merit a punishment beyond the scope of the governor's powers would be referred to Headquarters. Cases of proven sexual misconduct would almost certainly fall into this category but we do not have any records which would enable us to state how many such cases had been referred to us in the past five years. A Notice to Staff on sexual harassment was issued in 1992 and we have since mid-1991 kept informal records of complaints of sexual (and racial) harassment which are referred to us by area managers, governors and other colleagues. These include complaints by both staff and inmates. We have been able to identify two complaints against male members of staff at women's establishments. In 1991, one complaint of sexual harassment against a male principal officer resulted in a written warning. In 1992 a complaint of sexual harassment against a storeman was found not to be substantiated. Further details of other complaints could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.