HC Deb 03 March 1932 vol 262 cc1256-8
Sir H. SAMUEL

In answer to a question on 25th February, I described the arrangements adopted with respect to the leaders of the disturbance at Dartmoor, who are being kept apart from the other prisoners; tnese arrangements cannot properly be described as solitary confinement. The prisoners are allowed an hour's exercise daily, they work for about half the day outside their cells, and they are allowed the ordinary use of books. Thirty-two convicts have been so kept apart since 25th January awaiting the legal proceedings to be taken against them. Twenty-two other prisoners are now being brought before the Board of Visitors, who have power to award, among other penalties, the punishment of close confinement for a maximum period of 28 days. This punishment also allows for an hour's daily exercise, working at handicrafts in the cell, the use of books and attendance at chapel on Sundays. Yesterday there were 10 convicts undergoing this punishment, for an average period of nine days. Certain minor Changes in the way of additional precautions have been made at Dartmoor, but no question arises of any general changes in the disciplinary regime of convict prisons.

Mr. McENTEE

In congratulating the Minister on the attitude he has taken in this matter, may I ask him whether he will now consider the entire abolition of the inhuman form of punishment known as solitary confinement?

Sir H. SAMUEL

As I have pointed out, this arrangement cannot be properly described as solitary confinement.

Mr. McENTEE

I admit that in the case of these particular men, but I am asking for this matter to be considered.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald) has handed me a private notice question. It is not strictly in order because a question on the same subject is down on the Order Paper for the 10th March, but, as I understand there is some anxiety on the matter, I will allow him to put it to-day.

Captain P. MACDONALD

(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has granted the request of the Prison Reform Society to defend the Dartmoor convicts against whom charges are to be preferred in consequence of the recent mutiny in that prison; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for them to be defended by members of the legal profession taking their case solely from the men whom they are defending and not in part from any particular society?

Sir H. SAMUEL

The normal procedure with regard to persons in custody charged before courts with serious offences will, of course, be followed in these cases. If the prisoners or their friends have means to arrange for their defence, all necessary facilities will be accorded for their doing so, they will be left free to choose their own legal representatives, and they will be allowed to communicate with them or be visited and advised by them. If they have not means of providing privately for their defence, the prisoners can apply to the court for legal aid at the public expense under the enactments relating to poor prisoners. The prisoners will be fully informed of their rights in these matters. I have received a communication from a person who represents himself as being the Secretary of a Prison Reform Society, asking for special facilities for undertaking the defence of these prisoners. I should not in any case be justified in taking such steps except at the request of the prisoners themselves, and as this so-called Society is not a reputable body it would not be in their interest that I should do so.