§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the rules regarding the admission of visitors to prisoners in convict establishments; whether there is any rule limiting visits to the relatives of such prisoners; whether he is aware that several of the treason felony prisoners have no relatives in the United Kingdom; and whether permission to visit those prisoners was refused on the 18th and 24th January to certain members of the London Amnesty Association and some others; and, if so, will he explain why?
§ MR. ASQUITHPrisoners in convict establishments are allowed to be visited by their relatives and respectable friends subject to such restrictions as may be imposed for the maintenance of discipline and order in the prison, at intervals dependent on good conduct and industry. A prisoner during the first week of his sentence is allowed to receive a visit from his friends. Afterwards, during the first two years of his sentence at intervals of six months, during the third year at intervals of four months, during the fourth year at intervals of three months, provided in all cases that his conduct; and industry have been satisfactory. There is no rule limiting visits to the relatives of prisoners. I believe it is a fact that many of the treason felony prisoners have no relatives in the United Kingdom. And in view of that fact I have permitted visits, which until I came into Office had been prohibited, from the members of certain outside Associations of which the Body named in the question is one. I regret to say that the privilege was in some cases taken advantage of to make false statements both to the prisoners and to the outside public, and I have been obliged to grant the permission more sparingly, and for the present to suspend visits from persons who are not relatives or friends of prisoners.
§ MR. J. E. REDMONDAs this is a very important matter I wish to ask a supplementary question. It is, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware, not 188 only that a number of these prisoners have their relatives on the other side of the world, but that in the case of others their relatives are poor people, unable to pay the large cost of travelling to Portland; whether, as a matter of fact, some of these prisoners remain for a considerable number of years without receiving a single visit from the outside world; whether he is aware that the Association to which I have referred has as one of its chief objects to provide sufficient money to enable visitors to travel to Portland; and whether he will not relax the restriction he has put upon these visits, and so arrange matters that the prisoners may receive a visit every three months unless they have by their own misconduct lost their right to a visit?
§ MR. ASQUITHWhat the hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly true. Some of these men have no relatives or friends in the United Kingdom, and in the case of others the relatives are unable to afford the expense of making periodical visits. I have been most anxious to afford every facility I reasonably could to persons to make visits; and when I am satisfied that in any particular case that can be done without risk, either to the prisoner or to the other interests with which I am charged, I shall be most happy to grant permission in the future as in the past.
§ MR. J. E. REDMONDMay I ask, whether in the cases of refusal referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, permission was withheld on the ground that there was objection to the particular visitor for whom it was asked.
§ MR. ASQUITHNo.
§ MR. J. E. REDMONDThen on what ground was the refusal based?
§ MR. ASQUITHI have already informed the House of the fact that the practice had been abused, and therefore it seemed to me to be right to impose these restrictions.
§ MR. J. E. REDMONDAm I to understand that the fact that the practice was abused in the past will be held to be a sufficient reason for withholding visits in the future?
§ MR. ASQUITHNo; I have already said I will consider any applications made.