| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Although I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on obtaining this debate on what should be an important subject, it was marred by her introduction and some considerable factual
errors. She suggested that somehow there had been a deliberate plot to prevent her from having this debate earlier; so great was the national interest in the debate, that we had deliberately frustrated not only her previous debate but the one before and the one before that--all to prevent her from delivering a 15-minute speech. I find that unlikely, but the truth should be put on record.
The Labour Front-Bench spokesmen were not present to move their motions as they should have been, and the business of the House collapsed. I was most disappointed, because I could not respond to the hon. Lady. She said that I had visited Holloway six months before the inspection. That is amazing. I certainly would not have any locus to do so, because I was not in this office six months before the inspection. Eastwood Park opened not late but on time. The increase in the number of women prisoners is not, as I think I heard her say, 40 per cent. but 21 per cent.
I object most of all to the hon. Lady saying that I wished to avoid the spotlight falling on the Prison Service. Not at all; I welcome any opportunity for the spotlight to fall on the Prison Service and on its achievements, and especially on its achievements in the three years since it became an agency. I start my reply by again paying tribute to the amazing achievements of both management and staff in the Prison Service.
Since the Prison Service became an agency in 1993,it has had to cope with a sustained increase in the prison population. As of today, that increase stands at 24.3 per cent. Despite those pressures, by the end of December 1995, escapes were down 83 per cent. compared with the December 1992 figure. When I spoke in the House on24 January, I reported that 96 per cent. of prisoners had 24-hour access to sanitation, compared with only 70 per cent. in March 1992. I take pleasure in telling the House that that figure has risen to 99 per cent. and will be100 per cent. by the end of next month.
Dr. Lynne Jones:
Although I commend the achievement of having sanitation in cells, I have visited Winson Green, which admittedly is not a women's prison, where I found the facilities somewhat objectionable. As I said, toilet bowls are close to beds and prisoners often have to sit next to a lavatory, which they sometimes share with another prisoner, and eat their food. That is not a high standard as we approach the 21st century.
Miss Widdecombe:
It is a considerable improvement on slopping out, which in-cell sanitation has replaced. If I have time, I will return to prisoners sleeping with their heads up against lavatories. That allegation was levelled at Eastwood Park. That is untrue, because there is a screen.
I was talking about the achievements of the Prison Service, and before I reply to the main points that the hon. Lady made about Eastwood Park, the shackling of the lady who attended her baby's funeral and fine defaulters, I want to finish my remarks on the Prison Service. The hon. Lady rightly agreed with my statement on security and rehabilitation. It is worth recording that the service provides almost 300,000 more hours of purposeful activity for prisoners than when it first became an agency. That has been done while the number of prisoners spending more than 12 hours out of cell has risen from 10,400 to 18,700.
In keeping with the Prison Service goal to prepare prisoners for their return to the community, which the hon. Lady rightly said was an important goal, provision is being made for national vocational qualifications to be achieved during sentence so that prisoners have tradeable skills in the outside labour market. To the end of December 1995, prisoners had accrued between them 12,447 accredited units. In the past few years, the Prison Service has developed some excellent offending behaviour programmes and we are very confident of their quality and their worth. Although I would like to go on praising the Prison Service, I must turn to the main points that the hon. Lady raised.
First, I must comment on Eastwood Park--particularly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon(Sir J. Cope) is interested in the subject. I believe that Eastwood Park is located in his constituency, and I am grateful for his presence in the Chamber tonight. The cells at Eastwood Park are exceptionally well laid out. There are screens for the toilet and for the sink. The door opens to a full 90-degree angle and the cells measure 8 ft 9 in by 6 ft 2½ in. They do not hold people for 22 hours a day, as a newspaper article alleged. The cells are bedroom cells and prisons will be out of their cells from 8.30 am and will not return to them until 7.45 pm, with just two 15-minute periods per day when there is a roll call.
The very smallest cells in the prison are below the recommended standard by only 4 in on either side. Some cells in the prison are well above the average and there are segregation facilities and good hospital care facilities. Prisoners at Eastwood Park have moved from a prison where they spent far more time in their cells. At present, no one at Eastwood Park was imprisoned for non-payment of fines. The chief inspector of prisons has conducted an unplanned spot check of Eastwood Park and his report will be published shortly. I do not expect it to be in the same lurid terms as the hon. Lady's description.
Sir John Cope (Northavon):
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. I have visited the prison in my constituency and I visited the facility when it was a young offenders centre. The old Pucklechurch prison was also located in my constituency and the new prison is a great improvement on that facility. It is very unfair to judge the regime at Eastwood Park in the first three weeks of its operation before it is working properly. Of course it has teething problems, but it will be a much better prison than Pucklechurch.
Miss Widdecombe:
There is no doubt that it is a vast improvement on Pucklechurch. Teething problems in a newly opened prison are not exactly unusual.
I turn now to the case of the lady who was shackled while attending her baby's funeral. The hon. Lady said as a matter of fact--with amazing confidence--that the lady was not a risk. However, she failed a risk assessment which was carried out before her attendance at the funeral because of
Therefore, she was considered
It is true that the lady was not handcuffed during her visits to her baby while the baby was in hospital. That is because the room in which the baby was kept was secure: it is not because she was considered fit to be in public without restraints. It is essential that, when prison officers and governors are criticised--that is what it comes down to--we get the story absolutely right.
I turn now to the other points raised by the hon. Lady. She did not leave me a full quarter of an hour in which to reply, so if I run out of time I shall endeavour to respond to her in writing regarding the issues that I do not cover.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North):
It is her debate.
Miss Widdecombe:
That is true: the hon. Lady could have left me only one minute in which to respond--or no time at all. I am merely explaining why I shall not be able to cover all the points that she raised. It is merely a courtesy--I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that fact.
We must be clear about the types of crime for which women are held in prison under sentence--that subject formed quite a significant part of the hon. Lady's speech. Provisional figures show that one third of sentenced female prisoners held in prison in mid-1995 had been convicted of a primary offence of a violent or sexual nature or an offence of robbery or of burglary. More than one quarter were held for a drug-related offence, with one fifth held for theft or handling and 7 per cent. held for fraud or forgery. At the same time, 26 females were held in prison for non-payment of fines.
Dr. Lynne Jones:
Have those percentages increased at the same time as the prison population has increased, bearing it in mind that the number of crimes has decreased?
Miss Widdecombe:
I am citing the latest figures that we have: I would not give the hon. Lady selective figures. I do not have comprehensive figures beyond those, so I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question precisely. However, I shall look into the matter and, if I can later respond later, I shall certainly do so.
The hon. Lady also expressed concern--I think reasonably--about imprisonment for fine default. She will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recently announced a review of the powers and procedures available to the courts to ensure that they can enforce the payment of fines without resorting to imprisonment, save in the most exceptional circumstances. I am sure that that undertaking meets the spirit of the hon. Lady's speech.
I believe that the Prison Service gets a very unfair press and that individual incidents are blown out of all proportion. The day-to-day work done in both our male and our female prisons is impressive and extremely hard and it is carried out in the most difficult circumstances. I have pleasure in paying a tribute that is so noticeably lacking from the Opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
"her attitude, behaviour and aggressive state together with an alleged assault on a member of Prison Service staff during a previous escort".
"too great a risk to attend the funeral without handcuffs".
28 Mar 1996 : Column 1288
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |