§ 14. Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were made to the visiting committee at Dartmoor Prison during 1954 and to the most convenient date in 1955.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThis information is not available, as it has been the practice to file the record of a prisoner's application to the Board of Visitors in the personal record of the prisoner concerned. I will arrange for a board of visitors' application book to be kept in future.
§ Mr. CraddockIs the Minister aware that from a very reliable source I understand that many complaints have been made to visiting magistrates during the period stated in the Question, and I am very pleased to know that he is going to do something about this in the future, because I think that these records should be kept?
§ 15. Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why figures of the number of petitions made to him concerned with the standard of food in Dartmoor Prison are not available.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgePrisoners' petitions are filed on the prisoners' personal files and not by reference to the subject matter of the petition.
Mr. I. O. ThomasOn a point of order. This is the fourth time I have got up and not been called. I do not know whether that is due to the sun shining through the windows, but I would like to put a supplementary question occasionally.
§ Mr. CraddockIt is unusual for the Home Secretary not to be forthcoming in this matter. Does he not agree that these records which concern the health of the prisoner ought not to be disregarded, but very carefully kept?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThey are not disregarded. The hon. Gentleman's question was whether we have kept the figures. That would mean an enormous amount of work, dealing with every kind of petition. That is not to say that a petition is disregarded: on the contrary. But to keep statistics on the various kinds of complaints would provide an enormous amount of work.
Mr. I. O. ThomasMay I ask if the Minister is satisfied at the present arrangement for the functioning of visiting committees, especially regarding the number of times within a given period— [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong question."]— well, Question No. 15 relates to the same thing——
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. George Craddock. Question No. 16.
§ 16. Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the 90 men who refused their food at Dartmoor Prison on Friday, 21st January last, had signed a petition complaining about the food; and what action was taken in response to this complaint.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeNo petition or application in proper form was made to anyone in authority, but a fortnight before the refusal of food, round-robins which had been passed around for signatures, were found on two prisoners, who were reported and punished for being in possession of an unauthorised communication.
§ Mr. CraddockDoes the Minister deny that 90 men signed a petition complaining about the food? Surely notice should 2224 have been taken of the significance of this action by 90 men? Further, is the Minister aware that the Assistant Commissioner was in the prison on the day when the petition was laid; that it was given to him, and he refused to entertain it?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeI cannot accept that. The Assistant Commissioner was present the day before the mass refusals of food began, and no complaints about the food were made to him.
§ Mr. JannerIs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when men are confined in this way it is extremely difficult for them to have their complaints dealt with properly? If in fact 90 men did sign a petition of this nature, what did the Minister mean by saying a few moments ago, in reply to a Question of mine, that there had been very few complaints? Surely 90 complaints is a considerable number to be received at one time?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThere is a difference between the complaints and what happened at Dartmoor——
§ Mr. JannerWhat is it?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeI referred to it in answer to the previous Question by the hon. Gentleman. When the hon. Gentle man says that it is difficult for these men to make complaints, that is not true
§ Mr. JannerIndeed it is.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeIt is no use the hon. Gentleman repeating that it is, when I say that it is not. It is well known that there are many ways of making a complaint. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, let him refer to what I told him in answer to a previous Question, that complaints at Parkhurst were considered to be justified and were remedied.
§ Brigadier RaynerIn view of the increase in brutal crimes, will the Home Secretary direct that Dartmoor be made no more comfortable than it is now?
§ 17. Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why four prisoners at Dartmoor Prison were placed on bread-and-water diet from 27th January to 7th February, 1954; and when this method of punishment will be abolished.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThe information which I gave to the hon. Member on 17th February that four prisoners were on bread-and-water punishment diet between 27th January and 7th February, referred to the present year, as I had supposed that to be the period in which the hon. Member was interested. The figure for the corresponding period in 1954 was six, and the punishment was awarded for various offences, including threatening, improper or disrespectful language to a prison officer, creating a disturbance, disobedience to orders, and leaving the place of work without permission. Restricted diet No. 1 is a form of punishment provided for in the Prison Rules, which received the approval of Parliament; and no amendment of the Rules with regard to it is contemplated.
§ Mr. YatesMay I ask why it is that at Dartmoor the No. 2 punishment diet, specified by a dietary specialist, is never used; and why, on the evidence of the figures which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has given, during the whole of last year all the punishment was bread-and-water diet? Is it not rather disgraceful that we should continue to use this medieval form of diet, and how long will it be before it is abolished?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeAs I said to the hon. Gentleman, this form of punishment was approved by Parliament. A Departmental Committee on prison punishment has looked into the matter since, and I will quote from paragraph 49 of its Report:
There was general agreement that No. 1 diet was an effective and proper form of punishment.… No witness suggested that it should be abolished.… The value of the punishment is that it is short and sharp.…
§ 18. Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why 42 men recently engaged in a hunger strike at Dartmoor were not seen by the medical officer until they had refused all food for over 48 hours.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThere is no requirement in the Statutory Prison Rules or in prison regulations that a prisoner who persistently refuses food shall be seen by the medical officer from the outset of the demonstration, although the medical officer may, in the exercise of his judgment, consider it expedient to do so. In the case of the recent demonstration at 2226 Dartmoor, the acting medical officer made it his business to interview all the prisoners concerned; this took a considerable time, and he did not manage to see them all before refusal of food had persisted for 48 hours, though he did see a number. I should like to take this opportunity of placing on record my appreciation of the tact and skill with which the acting medical officer dealt with a difficult situation.
§ Mr. YatesWhile I appreciate that answer, may I ask if it is not rather serious that we should have as many as 42 persons refusing food who were not seen within 48 hours? Might not that have been seriously detrimental to their health?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThere was nothing to prevent them from keeping up their health by eating, because there was nothing wrong with the food. It was a demonstration of some sort, and no one suffered from it at all. But the real point is that the prisoners could easily have eaten the food, had they wanted to.