Prison safety a 'total disgrace', home secretary admits after Southport killer 'attacks prison officer with boiling water'
Supervision of Axel Rudakubana, 18, was reportedly downgraded just before he used a kettle in his cell to boil water which he then launched over the officer at HMP Belmarsh on Thursday.
It comes just weeks after Manchester Arena bomber Hashem Abedi attacked three prison officers at HMP Frankland by stabbing them with homemade weapons and throwing hot cooking oil on them.
The attacks have led to calls for Britain's most dangerous inmates to be housed in US-style 'supermax' conditions with no contact with other prisoners or access to kettles and cooking facilities.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper agreed there was a 'crisis in our prisons.'
'[The attack was] a total disgrace,' she told LBC Radio.
'Prison officers do a very difficult job and they deserve to be kept safe and have our support, and so we are taking these incidents very seriously.'
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick posted a video in which he said he had warned about the safety of prison officers and called for the Government to 'get a grip' before a staff member is killed.
Ms Cooper responded: 'There is a crisis in our prisons that was created by the Conservative government, so the idea that we should take seriously anything that any of those former ministers say about the prison system that they left in total crisis…they really need to take some responsibility and start apologising for it.'
Home secretary Yvette Cooper said there was a 'crisis in our prisons' and the attack was a 'total disgrace.'
The number of assaults on staff in adult prisons in England and Wales has reached its highest level in a decade, according to Ministry of Justice data.
More than 10,000 assaults on staff in male and female jails were recorded in 2024, up from 9,204 in 2023 and nearly three times the 3,640 in 2014.
Chairman of the Prison Officers' Association, Mark Fairhurst, called for 'supermax' facilities to house dangerous inmates like Rudakubana and Abedi.
'For the most violent, dangerous criminals who are intent on committing atrocities and attacking staff, the time has come for control and containment,' he said.
'This cohort of prisoners should not enjoy the same privileges and freedoms as those who do conform. 'Super-max is your basic entitlements nothing more.
'You would be cuffed every time you are unlocked [from your cell] and escorted by three staff. The gym consists of a rowing machine on the landing. And there are no possessions allowed in a cell apart from a radio and a book to read.'
The only federal supermax prison in the US is ADX Florence in Colorado, nicknamed the Alcatraz of the Rockies, and currently home to British terrorists including Abu Hamza and ISIS 'Beatles' Alex Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh.
Former prison governor and extremism adviser Ian Acheson said there was no rule that mandated Rudakubana to be allowed a kettle in his cell.
'This process seems to have fallen apart at HMP Belmarsh and other high security prisons where the rights of prisoners take precedence over safety of staff and a naive assumption that giving them things including potentially lethal weapons will appease them,' he added.
'The tail wags the dog, and officers are hospitalised as a consequence. It's no wonder new officers join and leave such a dangerous environment with increasing rapidity.'
Rudakubana was jailed for a minimum of 52 years in January for the murders of three girls and attempted murders of eight other children, class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes.
The Sun reported that his prison supervision was downgraded in recent weeks as he was previously in a healthcare unit being monitored round the clock.
In response to the rise in attacks, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood previously announced that the use of tasers will be trialled in prisons and confirmed the Prison Service will conduct a 'snap review' of the use of protective body armour for prison officers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ofwat chief David Black to step down with regulator set to be abolished
The chief executive of Ofwat is to step down as the embattled water regulator prepares to be abolished. David Black will leave the role at the end of August and an interim chief executive is being appointed in due course. The government last month announced the regulator would be abolished in a regulatory shake-up that comes as part of its response to public outrage over rising bills, sewage pollution and large bonusses for bosses. Ofwat may not be formally axed until at least 2027 because the process to overhaul the current system will likely be complex. Mr Black, who took over as Ofwat's boss in 2021, decided the time is right for him to pursue new opportunities, the regulator said. He said: "I have been privileged to be able to lead Ofwat, over the last four years, during which time we have achieved a huge amount together as a team for customers and the environment. "The 2024 price review backed an investment programme of £104bn, along with a further £50 billion investment in major new water resources, which will improve service, environmental outcomes and resilience in the years to come. "I wish the team every success as they continue their important work." Ofwat chair Iain Coucher said: "David has worked, tirelessly, to bring about transformational change in the water sector. "He has sought new regulatory powers and resources to hold companies to account, taken major enforcement action and provided funding and incentive packages that drive continual improvements for customers. "On behalf of the Board and everyone at Ofwat, I would like to thank David for his leadership and his service over the last 13 years and to wish him every success in the future." Ofwat will be abolished as part of an overhaul of the 'broken' regulatory system, environment secretary Steve Reed confirmed in July. He made the announcement in response to an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which was published last month. The review was commissioned by the government to answer public fury over pollution in rivers, lakes and seas, soaring bills, shareholder payouts and bosses' bonuses. Mr Reed said the move to create a single 'powerful' regulator, taking in the functions of four existing bodies with overlapping functions, would curb pollution and 'prevent the abuses of the past for customers'. The overhaul, he said, would ensure 'British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes we saw last year', and committed to cut water companies' sewage pollution in half within five years.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Former government minister delivers verdict on Nigel Farage as PM
Michael Gove has asserted that Nigel Farage is not a 'plausible prime minister ' and will not be ready for the role even in four years. The senior Conservative minister praised Farage's communication skills but questioned Reform 's team, policies, and programme for effective governance. Gove suggested Reform 's recent electoral success is due to being a 'repository of anger' against the political classes, rather than offering a compelling vision. He also described Farage as a 'bulwark against greater extremism' and recalled helping him resolve an issue with The Times newspaper.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
What are the pros and cons of introducing digital identity cards?
The prime minister is said to be 'seriously considering' a national system of digital identification, both to make it easier to access online services, including government ones, and to clamp down on illegal working by irregular migrants. Given the push to introduce artificial intelligence in so many areas of our lives, it may be an idea whose time has come. But there are political, as well as practical, complications. What is digital ID? It would in essence be a virtual ID card, and using it in the existing, and enhanced, Government Gateway would make it easier for people to manage everything from tax records and social security entitlements to driving licences, education, citizenship and probate – a vast array of areas in which the individual has dealings with the state. It could also be used, as a passport or driving licence is now, to help with all sorts of other activities, such as banking or getting a job. There is a separate, and obviously sensitive, question about whether digital ID should also encompass someone's medical history, voluntarily or otherwise. Why digital ID now? According to the briefings, the aim is to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of the government machine, so that, for example, people don't have to spend hours on hold when contacting a government agency. Unavoidably, though, it is also a way to detect people who shouldn't be in the country or working in the UK. That, the theory goes, means less of a 'pull factor' for certain sorts of migrant. Would it work? In a sense it is working already, in that almost everyone must have a unique tax reference, a national insurance number, a driving licence number, an NHS number and so on, and can, if they wish, share this information with others. But at the moment the system is compartmentalised and clunky, even if more and more interactions are taking place online and with chatbots. What stage are we at? Reports emanating from a 'senior minister' say that the prime minister has ordered a 'comprehensive and expansive look' at the proposal: 'Keir is leading on it,' they said. 'This is a serious piece of work. After a year in government, it is clear that technology is underpinning everything. Digital ID is foundational. Things are moving forward.' Didn't we have identity cards before? They were introduced as plain cardboard documents during the Second World War as a national security measure. People had to use them to get rationed food and petrol, and had to be ready to produce them on demand, a serious infringement of the traditional British way of doing things. The request for 'Papers, please' has always been regarded as an alien phenomenon. In the words of Boris Johnson in 2004: 'If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am ... then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.' (He subsequently brought in compulsory photo ID for elections.) Even now, a driver stopped by the police is granted 14 days to produce their driving licence at a police station. The wartime measures were resented, and were abolished in 1952. Mandatory ID would be a minor revolution. What about the ID cards Tony Blair wanted? He still does, by the way. Much of the present momentum for change comes from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), as if the former PM has never given up the struggle. At any rate, the current prime minister's chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, commissioned the TBI to produce proposals, and is said to be 'forceful' in making the case for them to No 10. Certainly, a more primitive version of this project was very much 'on the cards 20 years ago' when the Blair administration tried to bring in ID cards, but it ran into enormous resistance and administrative problems. The motives, in essence, were no different from today. In 2003, the then home secretary, David Blunkett, argued that cards with biometric data were needed so that 'people don't work if they are not entitled to work, they don't draw on services which are free in this country, including health, unless they are entitled to', and that 'when we find people we can identify quickly that they are not entitled and get them out'. When a limited, entirely voluntary ID card was introduced in 2010, some 15,000 were in circulation, but the incoming Conservative-Liberal Democrat government scrapped the entire scheme, after £5bn had been spent. A voluntary biometric residence permit is available as an option for foreign students or workers. Official photo ID cards for voting have also been introduced in recent years. What does the opposition say? Despite showing little interest in it while in government, earlier this year the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, conceded that digital ID could help tackle 'illegal' immigration. But Nigel Farage remains stubbornly libertarian, and opposes digital ID because he 'doesn't trust this government' and claims that it 'hurts law-abiding citizens'. Labour, and the Tories, could use his reluctance to argue that, given he is not prepared to use every possible measure in the fight against irregular migration, Farage wouldn't succeed in his own ambition to stop the boats. Will it happen? With 40 Labour backbenchers recently calling for change and the Conservatives warming to the idea, alongside the trend towards digitising everything, it feels pretty inevitable, like it or not. Will it work? To some extent, but there are ways to get around any system, and digital is no different from paper in that respect. It could make things worse for some. If a fraudster managed to 'steal' a vulnerable person's digital ID, for example, then it would be 'open sesame' on their entire life, and comprehensive identity theft might become more common. Leaks cannot be ruled out. There's also the grim possibility that a migrant who wanted to come to the UK to work, deprived of any ID, would just melt into the underground economy, and become even more exposed to crime and exploitation. In a worst-case scenario, some criminals or a malign foreign government could execute a mega-hack in which millions of people's data is stolen or frozen and held to ransom. Last, we must reflect on British governments' past lamentable record on grand digital integration schemes – and the fact that the current proposal, which would potentially bring together HMRC, the DWP, the DVLA, the Passport Office, criminal records, local authority records, and the NHS database, would be hugely more ambitious, and hazardous, than anything attempted before.
