HC Deb 09 May 1963 vol 677 cc800-12

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

I am raising tonight the matter of a letter sent to me by a prisoner in Wandsworth Prison on 16th March, inviting me to go along to talk to the prisoners in G, H and K wings, which letter was prevented from reaching me by the Governor of the prison.

I should explain how the letter came to be written. Some time ago, my friend, Mr. Peter Lyden Cowan, met one of the prison officers who works in the wings I have mentioned. This officer told my friend something about the rehabilitation scheme which is operated in this prison and with which the officer—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]

Mr. Lubbock

—had been concerned since its inception.

The rehabilitation scheme in Wands worth Prison is, I believe, unique in the whole of Britain. Its purpose is to try to fit prisoners for return to the outside world, to encourage them to think rationally about their relationships with society, and to prevent them from relapsing into crime when they come out of prison. The credit for these imaginative ideas goes not to the Home Office or to the Prison Commissioners, but to Mr. Richard Hauser of the Institute for Group Studies. There seems to have been no official encouragement given to Mr. Hauser in his work, and in the case I am raising there has been blatent obstruction, as I shall show.

As an integral part of the rehabilitation therapy, outsiders are invited to come to talk to the prisoners so as to help in the process of activating their minds. Knowing of my interest in this subject Mr. Lyden Cowan suggested to the officer that the prisoners might like to invite me to come to talk to them. The secretary of the prisoners' group wrote accordingly on 16th March, and, I believe, he wrote at the same time a similar letter to Mr. Lyden Cowan.

About three weeks elapsed and I still had not received the letter. I tabled a Question to the Home Secretary, asking why it had been prevented from reaching me. This Question was the subject of an article in the Guardian on the following Monday, 8th April, and on the Tuesday I heard that the officer concerned had been transferred away from the rehabilitation part of the prison to the maximum security wing.

The association between these two events was clear to me, and I tabled a further Question, asking for the reason for the transfer. The reply I received was that it was a purely temporary move dictated by staff needs, but I have very good reasons for believing this to be untrue, including the fact that, at the time of the transfer, the officer was reprimanded by the Governor. However, since this officer has now been returned to G block, probably, I think, as a result of the attention which was given by the newspapers to my original Question, I do not propose to pursue that aspect of the matter.

Returning to the matter of the letter itself, I elicited various interesting statements from the Home Secretary by successive questions. First, it was said that the Governor's excuse for stopping the letter was that he was under the impression that it invited me to give a political talk. Secondly, it was asserted that the letter was really not a letter at all but a draft. Thirdly, the letter was destroyed shortly after 16th March, the date on which it was written, but a copy subsequently came to light which the Home Secretary was good enough to give to me before this debate. Finally, the decisions to disallow the letter and destroy it were made without consulting the Home Secretary.

The Home Secretary now concedes that it was an error of judgment on the part of the Governor to disallow the sending of the letter since there was nothing in it which could possibly have justified the Governor's assumption that the subject of the talk would be political. In fact, the penultimate paragraph of the letter reads: Naturally, the subject of your talk would be left to you or perhaps you would prefer to hear more from us''. There is nothing in that which would suggest that the subject of the talk would be political. However, I maintain that, even if this unwarranted assumption had been correct, the Governor's action in stopping the letter would still have been wrong.

It is declared Government policy that the treatment of prisoners should be designed to strengthen a sense of responsibility in them not only in relation to their life in the prison itself, but to the life outside to which they must return. I should have thought, therefore, that, provided a proper balance between the political parties was observed, talks on current political questions might be an important element in any rehabilitation scheme. However, I shall not pursue this, either.

It was important for the Home Secretary to pretend that we were not talking about a letter, but only about a draft because, if we speak of an actual letter and not a draft, just about every rule in the book has been broken. I have studied the standing orders for the government of prisons very carefully. These standing orders makes no reference to drafts. I maintain, therefore, that every written communication between a prisoner and a person outside the prison must be governed by the rules which apply to letters. In any case, the dictionary definition of a draft is a preliminary sketch, and the phraseology of this letter shows clearly that it was carefully considered and finalised. The rules list the subjects which may not be referred to in prisoners' letters, and none of these apply in this case.

Even if it is necessary to withhold an outgoing letter on account of objectionable matter contained in it, Rule 374 (6, a) provides that the prisoner must be given an opportunity of rewriting it. I want the Home Secretary to see that this rule is observed in this case by instructing the Governor of Wandsworth Prison to allow the prisoner to write me another letter to replace the one which has been destroyed.

I maintain, also, that there has been a breach of rule 374 (1, e), which says that letters which are withheld must be entered in book 1004 and must be recorded on the form 67 or penal record. I should like to have an admission this evening that contraventions in these respects have taken place, and I want no more of the silly playing with words by which the Home Secretary has sought to excuse them.

As a result of this case, I have received a good many letters from ex-prisoners alleging widespread interference with prisoners' correspondence. In fairness, it should be said that, in some instances, this may have been caused by the prisoners concerned not understanding properly the rules to which I have referred. I mention, in passing, that the standing orders and rules governing prisoners' correspondence are in such a mess that it is a wonder that the Home Secretary himself can understand them. I hope that some assurance can be given that they will be reprinted immediately so that they can be better understood.

The pamphlet "Inside Story", recently published by the Prison Reform Council, says this: Every prisoner reports that his or her first few weeks in prison are spent in a state of bewilderment because of the lack of clear information about routine regulations … The Council goes on to suggest that every new intake of prisoners should be given a briefing meeting soon after admission so that these matters can be clearly explained to them. This is extremely important in the case of letters which are one of their main contacts with the outside world. I do not think that at present they can possibly understand these regulations.

I think, also, that quite a few letters are being stopped for irregular reasons. I want to mention some of these in pass- ing, because the whole point of this case is that I hope to draw attention to something which is of much more widespread importance than just one letter. A lady who served for eighteen months in Strangeways Prison writes to tell me that on several occasions her weekly letter to her parents was stopped because she made comments about the disgusting conditions in the prison.

In another case, Mr. Michael Randle writes to me that in a communication to his wife he referred to a television broadcast in which he had seen the Prime Minister he included the statement that (the man sounded more than slightly drunk. The Governor of the Prison held the letter up on the ground that it was a contravention of Rule 75(b), which I think is a misprint for Rule 75(3), in Statutory Instrument No. 1073 of 1949, which says: ,…it shall be within the discretion of the Governor to stop any letter on the grounds that its contents are objectionable … Rule 374 says: Objectionable matter falls within narrow limits, viz."— I think that this is the rule under which the letters were stopped— …complaints about the courts, the police …if…deliberate and calculated attempts to hold these authorities up to contempt. It was said that in that letter Mr. Randle was holding the Prime Minister up to contempt and that the Prime Minister came under the definition of "authorities". I contend that as immediately before that phrase it refers to the courts and the police one could not possibly accept that explanation of the rule and that the Governor acted incorrectly in this case as well.

Two instances of letters to Members of Parliament which have been wrongfully withheld have been drawn to my attention. Hon. Members will probably recollect one case because it happened to a former Member of this House, Mr. Peter Baker, who wrote offering his resignation after he had been convicted. That letter was destroyed. When he made inquiries about this the officer concerned said, "Well, you see, this is what we usually do with first letters from a prisoner to an M.P. We enter them through the records as posted and then tear them up".

The second case I want to mention, which is a more recent one, is a letter from Mr. Trevor Hatton to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). This letter was about misuse of the Official Secrets Act, under which he was convicted. He was told that this letter had been destroyed, but it was subsequently returned to him after he was released from the prison. I contend that this letter should not have been stopped, because Rule 374(5) says that

Comment by a prisoner on his own conviction and sentence"— is not objectionable if expressed in proper terms.

1 have mentioned these cases to show that the letter which is the subject of the debate this evening is not by any means an isolated case. I believe that unwarranted interference with prisoners' mail is taking place in many prisons other than Wandsworth and that we are not just dealing with one instance of an error of judgment.

I want to conclude by asking for a reply to several important questions which arise out of this case and the associated ones which I have mentioned in connection with it. When will these regulations be recodiflecl in an intelligible form so that they can be understood not only by the governors of the prisons, but by the prisoners themselves? What steps are to be taken meanwhile to ensure that both the governors and the prisoners understand the regulations in their present form and that they are being applied correctly?

I sincerely hope that it will not be left to individual Members of Parliament to discover for themselves when contraventions of this kind are taking place. Are any secret glosses on the rules being issued to governors? If that is the case, I think that they should be incorporated in the standing orders and the rules to which I have referred. Finally, if satisfactory assurances are given tonight on these matters to which I have referred, some good will have come out of this shabby little episode.

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike)

I am very glad to have the opportunity of describing the facts of this case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for making it possible for this incident—this unhappy misunderstanding—to get perhaps a fuller airing than we could give it in Question and Answer.

The hon. Gentleman began by saying that this demonstrated an obstruction on the part of the prison authorities towards a scheme of rehabilitation which I think we all admire and welcome. I wish to assure the hon. Gentleman that that is quite a wrong interpretation to put upon this misunderstanding, because misunderstanding it is. I think that we all welcome these types of discussion groups which are growing up in our prisons and we wish to see more of them. I do not think that we tonight or at any time in the House should in any way seek to impede this type of progress.

It would be useful if I could quite briefly but equally quite clearly indicate the organisation and the running of this discussion group in Wandsworth Prison. In H and K wings at Wandsworth Prison there are organised discussion groups of prisoners which to some extent conduct their own affairs through their own appointed prisoner-organiser. What business a group transacts and the methods by which it conducts it are subject always to the general control of the prison staff. Part of the object of having these groups of prisoners engaged in activities of this kind is to encourage self-reliance and a sense of responsibility in them, and the control exercised by the staff is as unobtrusive as is consistent with the duty to maintain good order and discipline and further the welfare of individuals.

Generally speaking, and in particular in any group activity which involves communication with persons outside the prison, the prisoner-organiser has to act with the approval of the Assistant Governor in charge of his wing and if he is in any doubt he consults the Governor of the prison. A part of the activities of the group in Wandsworth is to invite visiting speakers to address the group. When the Assistant Governor has approved a proposal to issue such an invitation, the invitation is signed by the prisoner-organiser and the Assistant Governor then sends a covering note, the obvious purpose of which is to assure the person invited that the invitation from the prisoner is authentic and has the approval of the authorities. That is the machinery, as it were, for running a group in Wandsworth Prison.

I will indicate the events leading up to this misunderstanding which has arisen. Early in March, I am informed, a serving officer at Wandsworth Prison was visited at his home by a Mr. Lyden Cowan, the local Liberal Parliamentary candidate, for the purpose, I am told, of canvassing his support. During the conversation Mr. Lyden Cowan told the officer of the interest of the hon. Member for Orpington in penal matters. As a result of this the officer—and I might add that he is an extremely keen and alert man—subsequently saw the Assistant Governor in charge of H and K wings and suggested to him that an invitation might be sent through the prisoner-organiser of the group to the hon. Member for Orpington to visit H and K wings and address the prisoner discussion groups there.

From the manner in which the suggested invitation was put forward the impression arose that the proposed talk was to be on a political subject, and since it is not the present policy to permit such talks, it was decided that it would be inappropriate for the invitation to be sent. In the meantime, I understand that the prisoner-organiser had prepared the letter of invitation in anticipation of its approval, but in the light of the decision the letter was not sent and the original was destroyed. It was at first thought that no copy of the proposed invitation had been kept, but it was subsequently discovered that the prisoner-organiser had kept a carbon copy.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

The hon. Lady has said that it is the present policy not to have political talks, but surely the prisoners listen and watch television, so what objection can there be to such talks?

Miss Pike

As to political arguments on television, it is laid down by this House in the Television Act that political comment should be evenly balanced. It is, therefore, considered that when prisoners, like the general public, view television they should hear an evenly balanced argument. The difficulty in the matter we are discussing is that of getting an even balance in political talks from one side and the other. When I say that it is the present policy I would, of course, not wish to commit future Home Secretaries. However, as things stand, these discussion groups are in their infancy and it is the present policy not to have talks of a political nature.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I have with me a copy of the letter supplied by the Home Secretary. In view of its contents, which refer to visits by an hon. Member of the Conservative Party and an hon. Member of the Labour Party, how can it be thought that the invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was irregular when the other two invitations were to hon. Members of other political parties?

Miss Pike

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is twisting my words. I did not say that there was anything irregular about the invitation, and had he been listening to my description of the events which led up to the decision he would have heard me stress the point that the invitation arose out of a political context. On this point, a copy of the letter was not shown to the Governor. It was put to him as a proposal from the discussion group that the hon. Member concerned should address the prisoners. The Governor turned it down in the belief at that time that this was to be a political speech.

It has not been possible to establish all these facts by direct inquiry because, as I explained earlier, the Assistant Governor unfortunately had an accident in which he sustained injuries to his head necessitating hospital treatment and sick leave. It was thought that it would be in his best interests—and the hon. Member for Orpington has agreed with this—that he should not be questioned over this.

This request was turned down at the time because it was believed by the Prison Governor that it would be outside the terms of the discussion group. In this connection, the hon. Member for Orpington raised another point concerning the treatment of the letter. He asked if it was a draft letter. Here was a proposal put forward by a group. The letter to which he refers and of which we now have a copy was, in effect, a proposal or draft to go out under the Governor's approval. It is in that sense that I regard it as a draft letter. It was, at the time, a proposal from the group that it should invite a particular person to speak. This was a proposal to the Governor and, in that sense, it was, in my submission, a draft of what the letter should have been had it gone out.

Mr. Lubbock

Would not the hon. Lady agree that nowhere in these rules OT standing orders is the word "draft" used? Surely, in the absence of any such reference, a communication by a prisoner to a person outside must be treated as being under the rules of letters.

Miss Pike

I am coming to that. Having explained where this letter stands in the system, I would point out that this was not under the rules for prisoners' letters. This was not coming from an individual prisoner making an individual request. It was coming from a group. The prisoner-organiser is, as it were, secretary of the group. In these circumstances, I do not believe that it is right and proper that it should be regarded as his personal letter. It came from a group. I hope that in future we shall have many such discussion groups in our prisons. These things should be regarded things as part of group activity.

I want to make a clear distinction between this type of letter from a discussion group and letters which come under the particular heading of "prisoners' letters". The hon. Gentleman raised this, but he will forgive me if I cannot, at this late hour, give him all the particulars about the cases he mentioned. But the case of the letter from Mr. Randle has been very well aired. It has been thoroughly investigated, but I have not the details as I was not in the Home Office at the time. It is, however, very well known to hon. Members.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Is the hon. Lady now admitting that this letter, whether it was a letter or a draft, really ought to have been sent and not destroyed?

Miss Pike

No. I was explaining the events which led to this misunderstanding. I think that in the light of all the facts we now know, permission would have been given, because it is clear, in retrospect, that the invitation had no political colour or implication. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member for Orpington asking him to accept an invitation to the prison to speak to this discussion group. I hope and believe that the hon. Member will do so. I must admit I am anxious not to try to apportion blame in this case. It was a genuine misunderstanding and I am sure that that is what the hon. Member accepts it to have been.

The hon. Member raised an interesting point which I do not wish to dodge. He talked about the complication of standing orders. When he and I look at these orders they do seem extremely complicated, but I remind him that they are for the use of prison authorities who are well versed in them and can go through them with far greater ease than those seeing them for the first time. I am reminded that when I was a sergeant in the W.A.A.F. I could not understand King's Regulations the first time I went through them. But, having to revise them later, I got used to them and the various cross-references.

Mr. Lubbock

Will the hon. Lady deal with the point about the standard rules and regulations not having been reprinted since 1938 and which are now a mass of amendments upon amendments?

Miss Pike

As I have said, we find this complicated, but I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point. It is probably as equally important that people like us should be able to see them as it is for administrators.

The other point the hon. Member mentioned is that the prisoners themselves should understand the rules, and, of course, this is important. I am a novice in these matters, having been in the Home Office only a few weeks. But I am informed that the rules are clearly stated in written form for prisoners.

We all understand, however, that it is one thing for us to look at the rules and think that they are clear, and another thing for people who have not had the same opportunities of education and experience. I am informed that the Governors try to make certain that prisoners understand the very complicated rules and routines of prison life. But, again, I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to these matters, because it is extremely important that people understand these things as clearly as possible and that we make them as simple as possible.

I hope that I have covered, even though briefly, the main points raised by the hon. Member. He talked about interpretation, particularly on one aspect. I have no time now to go through the new standing order that was issued as recently as 18th April, but I will send it to him. It gives a new and, I think, better interpretation of the rules which would probably obviate some of the serious difficulties the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

I am sure we all welcome these discussion groups and wish them well, and that we want to say nothing to make it more difficult for those in authority who are running this very important and difficult scheme. I repeat how welcome the hon. Member will be when he comes to this discussion, and I am sure that on that occasion his talk will be extremely interesting and will contain nothing of a political nature.

Mr. Lubbock

Will the hon. Lady deal with the point of giving the prisoner concerned an opportunity to rewrite the invitation, since it came from him in the first place?

Miss Pike

I must admit that I have forgotten exactly what the hon. Gentleman said on this point. But the fact about this letter was that the Governor was not approving or disapproving a request in a letter but was merely looking at a proposal. It was not a question of whether or not the letter was properly drafted.

Mr. Lubbock

I appreciate that and also the Home Secretary's kind invitation to me to visit the prison.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.