Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 104: 104: Clause 15, page 10, line 33, at end insert— ““( ) The restricted activity that may be the subject of authorisation under subsection (3) may include in particular— (a) the control of entry to, and exit from, the prison by visitors; and (b) the staffing of prison control rooms.”” The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 104 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay. Clause 15 marks a radical departure from the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which enabled the contracting out of private prisons while providing an important safeguard requiring certain functions to be performed only by directly accountable public servants. The powers were adjudication, judgment of prisoners charged with offences under prison rules, segregation, cellular confinement and the application of mechanical constraints such as body belts. Clause 15 would transfer those powers to the employees of a private company delivering a contract at a contracted-out prison, potentially removing the direct line of public accountability from the PCO to a controller based in the new Ministry of Justice. I am introducing the amendment and this line of argument regardless of any debate to do with the ethics of providing prison services through the private sector. Safeguarding and accountability in prisons is inextricable from the protection of the public and the accurate deployment of the duty of care that the Government owe to those whom they hold in custody. Clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to stipulate by order certain restricted activities that, by default, would be carried out by a prisoner custody officer or a prison officer temporarily attached to the prison, but that could be carried out by workers at a contracted-out prison with the authorisation of the director of the prison. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State included in the list of restricted activities those that are most essential to the preservation of safety and order in a prison—namely, the control of entry and exit of visitors and the staffing of prison control rooms. I do not wish to undermine the capabilities of staff in the private prison sector. That is not what this amendment is about. It is about maintaining the safeguard of public accountability in a service where, at each legislative turn, the Government seem to seek to abdicate responsibility. In the debates on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 before it was introduced, the then Minister—now my noble friend Lord Waddington—stated that private prisons would have assigned to them, "““a Government-appointed controller, who, rather than the private sector director of the establishment, would conduct disciplinary hearings, authorise a prisoner's removal from association, his confinement in a special cell, or the application to him of any other special control or restraint””.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/90; col. 151.]" Yet this Government have seen fit to downgrade that function, as the Minister in another place rather glibly confirmed. He said: "““Although we accept that the current restrictions made sense when private prisons were first introduced, they appear to be increasingly unnecessary””.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 1015.]" The majority of private prisons perform well. Indeed, I would not want to overlook the fact that since they were introduced, private prisons have inspired far greater performance across the whole prison estate. I do not deny that and I congratulate them on their work. However, in this instance, we must focus on the minimum standard of performance expected and the safeguarding of that through public accountability. An analysis of the lowest performing private prisons is necessary. The need for the amendment is even more pressing following the most recent report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I am afraid that the prognosis on the private prison estate was not as good as we might hope. I am grateful for the assistance of the Prison Reform Trust regarding this report. On Forest Bank, the chief inspector noted: "““There had been 2,500 adjudications for offences against prison discipline in six months; drugs were rife, with a 40% rate of positive mandatory drug tests in the most recent month; prisoner assaults on other prisoners were running at 25 a month; and there were examples of assaults on, and routine intimidation of, staff. Staff turnover was high, and many lacked the experience and confidence to challenge inappropriate behaviour””." That again relates to the training problem. The most recent report on Rye Hill stressed, "““the inexperienced and poorly supported staff group, 30% of whom had been in post less than 6 months””." The report on Dovegate talked of, "““stretched and inexperienced staff struggling to maintain control””," and of, "““worrying examples of searches not being conducted properly and of inappropriate use of force””." The complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about training runs right through those reports. As it stands, the delegation of responsibility on custodial tasks is too great a risk to take for that part of the private prison estate. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting the amendment; indeed, I fervently hope that when it is accepted, it will be implemented in the context of the Government owing a legal duty of care to those held in custody. It would surely be the greatest safeguard that we could hope for. In the mean time, I urge the Minister to consider the full implications of separating the link between crucial custodial tasks and public accountability. It has been said previously that a Government who have nothing to be ashamed of have nothing to hide. I hope that the Minister will look on this as an opportunity to make a positive concession that demonstrates the Government’s faith in the private prison system. I beg to move.