Clause 11
Offender Management Bill
3:00 pm
Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Bradford South, Labour)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those concerns. Perhaps it will help the Committee if I give some general background to clauses 11 to 15, which deal with related matters.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 created the legislative framework that supports the use of private providers of custodial services. It created the role of prisoner custody officer, equivalent to a prison officer, as well as the roles of director, equivalent to a governor, and of controller—a Crown servant—who was given statutory duties aimed at ensuring the proper running ofthe establishment and the appropriate treatment of prisoners. The 1991 Act defines the scope of the powers of each group. Clauses 11 to 15 and clause 21 make specific amendments to the 1991 Act, rather than seeking to introduce new legislation to replace or supplement it.
The first private prison opened in 1992, and there are now 11 such prisons operating in England and Wales holding about 10 per cent. of the prison population. The companies that provide those services have developed a strong track record of delivery and are driving forward the decency agenda, as well as introducing innovation and increasing value for money in public sector prisons. Martin Narey, the former director general of the Prison Service, has said that if had not been for the private sector, the decency agenda would not have moved at the pace that it has.
If we are to make a reality of the recommendations in Lord Carter’s report, “Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime”, then we need to provide, so far as it is practicable, a level playing field between public, private and voluntary providers in the delivery of services to offenders. That aim is best served by ensuring parity in the framework within which services are provided, so as to remove barriers to the best provider being selected.
In response to Lord Carter’s recommendations and the private sector’s strong record on delivery, we therefore propose to resolve some of the historical inconsistencies in the development of private custodial provision. We will create a level playing field for contestability by putting directors on a similar footing to prison governors in the public sector and expanding the powers of less senior workers to align them with their public sector counterparts. This raft of changes is therefore supportive of the general development of NOMS.
Turning to the substance of the clause, the 1991 Act placed limits on the power of prisoner custody officers to search visitors which are more restrictive than those that apply to prison officers in the public sector. Those powers prohibit anything other than a rub-down search, and they do not permit a visitor to be required to remove any piece of clothing other than an outer jacket, jacket or gloves. Such a strict prohibition is not imposed on the public sector. The smuggling of drugs and other items of contraband is a problem in both sectors. The searching restrictions on prisoner custody officers have unintentionally made illegal activities on the part of visitors and prisoners potentially easier in private prisons, which does not make sense and which may cause a real risk to the maintenance of prison security in the future.
With this in mind, we seek through this clause to make it clear that the rub-down search power of a prison custody officer is broadly equivalent to that available to a public sector prison officer. The clause expands that power by deleting from the 1991 Act the prohibition of the removal of anything other than outer clothing. I recognise that it is important that the power is exercised properly and with restraint, and that the limits to the power are fully understood by those who use it. To reflect that desire, we have expressly included in the clause a prohibition on the conduct of intimate searches, as defined under section 164(5) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, of visitors or prisoners by a PCO. It is our view that such searches, if necessary, should be carried out only by a police officer.