HC Deb 13 November 1956 vol 560 cc911-22

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

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

We have just listened to an earnest non-party debate on behalf of a small but worthy minority. I want to introduce another non-party subject on behalf of two larger minorities—the inmates of Her Majesty's prisons and the Members of this House. I want to discuss the question of censorship by prison officers of prisoners' letters to Members of Parliament. I am not raising the general question of censorship and I hope, therefore, that when the Joint Under-Secretary replies he will not indulge in a dissertation of the necessity for a general censorship but will devote himself solely to justifying, if he can, the continuance of the practice whereby an anonymous prison officer decides what a prisoner shall be allowed to tell his Member of Parliament, or whether he shall be allowed to tell him anything at all.

Until last July it was the practice for prisoners' letters to be censored and copied, but on 26th July I asked the Home Secretary if he would abolish both practices. In his reply he agreed to stop copying the letters, but he refused to abandon censorship. Unfortunately, whilst he was replying there was some noise in the Chamber, and I and some of the reporters in the Gallery thought that his answer had indicated that he was abolishing censorship as well. On 30th July the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wrote to me and said that the Press report had been incorrect. He added: The object of censorship is to prevent the dissemination of objectionable matter and I cannot agree that prisoners should be free, even when writing to M.Ps., to include objectionable matter such as grossly improper language or threats of violence, in their letters. He went on to make it clear that the only change he was making was that in future copies of letters would not automatically be taken and that, consequently, letters would be available for posting rather sooner than hitherto.

I was not content to leave the matter at that, and on Thursday, 25th October,

I again asked the Home Secretary to end this censorship of prisoners' letters to M.P.s. He again refused, and in reply to a supplementary question said that it was not only objectionable matter and threats that he was concerned about, but that prisoners might give Members of Parliament information about how to commit crimes. There was considerable laughter at that, because it conjured up a vision of prisoners conducting a sort of correspondence course with hon. Members, with the prospect of "doing a job" together when they came out of prison.

That sounded funny at the time, but personally I cannot regard it as diverting. These men have been convicted of crimes and properly sentenced, and they must conform to prison regulations during their term of duress; there can be no argument about that. But they have not lost all human rights. No man or woman should be deprived of the right of communication with his Member of Parliament. Equally, no Member of Parliament should be debarred arbitrarily from receiving communications from his constituents. If the Joint Under-Secretary, instead of having to reply to this debate, were able to consider the question as an ordinary Member, I feel confident that his sentiments would be the same as mine—as would be the sentiments of all hon. Members.

During recent years it has been many times alleged that soldiers have been discouraged from writing to M.P.s, or punished for so doing, and it has always been hotly denied by the present Minister of Defence. I, personally, am confident that the position in that respect is now quite satisfactory. But a soldier has many opportunities of ventilating a grievance or an injustice. He can write to the Press, or get his friends and relatives to act for him, but all those opportunities are denied to the prisoner. He cannot write to anyone if the prison officials do not want him to do so. I make no reflection whatever on the honour or integrity of prison governors or prison officers, but it is unanswerable that this system is open to the gravest possible abuse. I shall quote cases in which I am convinced that this power has been abused and used to cloak injustice.

I want to address two questions to the Joint Under-Secretary. First, can he give a categorical assurance that no prisoners' letters to M.P.s are now being copied? I ask that because of the statement of the Home Secretary that they were no longer to be automatically copied. On two recent occasions I have received letters from two different prisoners accompanied by letters from a governor stating that the prisoners had sent similar letters to other M.P.s he had named. How could he know that if no copies had been taken? I think that my feeling in this matter is shared by other hon. Members, and I strongly object to this form of interference with my correspondence.

The second question which I address to the hon. Gentleman is whether the only reason put forward for continuation of censorship is that it is to protect M.P.s from possible rude words or violent language or information about crimes? I suggest that the first two possibilities are not worthy of consideration. Hon. Members get abuse from all sorts of people. As to the last reason, the only possible meaning is a comic one which I do not propose to pursue.

Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell me what valid grounds exist for preventing a prisoner from writing to his Member? I ask him not to tell me what is said in the Regulations—that it is to prevent M.P.s acting on behalf of prisoners to suborn witnesses, tamper with evidence or facilitate escapes or that M.P.s might improperly hold the authorities up to contempt. Hon. Members have not and would not do those things, and it is an insult to all of us to suggest that we might do so. Nor do I want to be told that the prison Regulations have not been altered since 1949, when they were confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He has changed his mind about another matter which is far more important than the one which I am discussing tonight. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to say whether he is himself satisfied that the continuance of this practice is not a breach of the rights and privileges of hon. Members of this House.

I am well aware that most men in prison are there for a very good reason. I am equally aware that they frequently make complaints which are groundless, and that they often write long, involved letters in which they seek to prove their innocence even of crimes to which they have pleaded guilty. I submit, however, that M.P.s know how to deal with such letters. If anyone doubts their discretion or integrity it should not be an unknown prison officer who decides whether an hon. Member of this House is sufficiently discreet or honourable to have an un-censored letter sent him by a prisoner.

I come to what I regard as the crux of the matter and what in my view is the real reason for continuation of censorship. I emphasise that I am talking only about censorship of letters to Members of Parliament. I submit that the reason for this continuation is the desire of prison officials and the Home Office to have the power to suppress a letter if they think fit, and a very large number of letters are suppressed.

I say without hesitation that such a power is the power of a police State exercised in a democracy, and in all decency it should be abolished. The prisoner has the right, I know, to lay his grievance before the governor and then to petition the Home Secretary, but the latter process involves very long delay and, so far as I am aware, the result is rarely, if ever, satisfactory to the petitioner. He can then write to his M.P. but only if the governor says "Yes." Beyond question sometimes the governor says "No," and then something very like a vicious form of tyranny can come into operation.

I would cite one or two examples. On 2nd July last my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) told the Home Secretary that she had received complaints about the treatment of prisoners in Walton Prison. She asked the right hon. Gentleman for an inquiry and said that if her request were not granted she would feel obliged to give the names of the prison officers who were alleged to be responsible. A public inquiry was ordered, and I shall therefore make no further reference to it.

The point I wish to make is that my hon. Friend did not get the full information until a prisoner was released, because those concerned could not get a letter to her. Letters which had been written did not reach her. Prisoners who desired to make statements were warned that if they desired to make a statement which they could not prove they were likely to be brought before the Prison Commissioners on a very serious charge.

That means that if there were abuses, they had to continue until one of the people concerned was able to come out of prison. That meant months or in some cases years. My hon. Friend had hoped to take part in this debate but owing to the lateness of the hour she has had to leave.

A few minutes ago my hon. Friend left with me two letters which she had received this morning from the Home Secretary, written about two prisoners at different prisons, and both were concerned with letters that had been suppressed. In one of them the Home Secretary says to my hon. Friend that if it had been shown that a complaint of improper treatment was untrue, it would render the prisoner liable to punishment. The prisoner had said that he complained about a warder's brutality and the beating of a prisoner and about himself being repeatedly threatened by a warder. The governor told him that he did not believe a word of it, and that I was liable to be punished if it was disproved. I am not arguing that a man may not be punished for making wanton or unfounded accusations, but to show how the dice are loaded against a man who wants to make a complaint, and that it needs a man of strong courage and persistence to make even a legitimate complaint under conditions like these. That man's letter of complaint to his Member of Parliament was suppressed.

The other letter from the Home Secretary says that the prisoner's letter was suppressed because it contained complaints of prison treatment which had not been ventilated through one of the appointed channels. Why should not a man who is worried or in distress be able to write to his Member of Parliament?

I would also cite the case of Alfred Hinds which was referred to in an Adjourned debate by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) on 30th November, last year. The hon. Member had wished to be present tonight, but owing to the lateness of the hour he has had to leave. While on remand in Brixton Prison, and therefore, in accordance with British law, entitled to be regarded as an innocent man, Hinds wrote to his Member of Parliament asking for help in a matter which was vitally important to his defence. That letter was suppressed. Hinds petitioned the Home Secretary, who refused to help him and refused to hand the letter to the hon. Member.

There can be no question whatever that the prison governor in that case suppressed the letter at the request of the police, and that the Home Secretary aided and supported that suppression. It does not matter whether or not Hinds was guilty as charged; he was entitled to all possible aid in his legitimate defence. The suppression of that letter was a Kremlin-like abuse of power and may have led to a grave miscarriage of justice.

Surely these things cannot be permitted to go on in the twentieth century. Within the last week I have had two letters from two prisoners who have now been able to send me copies of the letters which they originally sent and which were suppressed, and for which suppression I can see no possible reason within the Regulations. One was a most respectful and polite letter to New Scotland Yard asking for an address, which was suppressed by the governor on the ground that it was not the job of the police to act as postmen. Perhaps it is not their job, but the suppression of the letter could not be justified in accordance with the Regulations. Here again, the Home Secretary, when petitioned, said that there were no grounds even for investigating the matter.

To these men, this represents a brick wall of frustration and despair. I could quote many other examples, particularly from the same prison. I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to consider the possibility that there seems to be some difference in the application of the Regulations as between one governor and another.

Finally, there is one other case, which I raised in the House, in which a constituent was permitted to write to me after I had raised the general question of censorship. After nineteen months of enduring the conditions imposed on prisoners on the "escape" list and after petitioning the governor and the Home Secretary, he wrote to me. Frankly, I did not believe his story, but I wrote to the Home Secretary and two weeks later tabled a Question. As I came into the House on the day that the Question was to be answered—14th June—a letter was handed to me marked "Very urgent." It admitted that all that my constituent had said was true. A little later, when the Home Secretary replied, I was informed that this man and nine others in the same prison had two days earlier been removed from the "escape" list. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there was no connection between those releases and my Question, I think he would be in a minority of one.

Prisoners have an inalienable right to send letters to their Members of Parliament, and they should be sent without censorship or alteration. Under no circumstances should they be suppressed. The present system is subject to grave abuse. It is calculated to drive men with a genuine grievance to despair. It is a tyrannous practice which is at the same time a reflection on the honour and dignity of Members of this House. It is an infringement of our rights and privileges, and I ask most earnestly that it should be ended tonight.

11.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I do not attempt in any way to minimise the importance which the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Fins-bury (Mr. Collins) attaches to correspondence with Members of Parliament. It is a fundamental right and any interference, for whatever reason, is a delicate matter. Clearly, there are principles involved in the right of any prisoner to communicate with a Member of Parliament, and I assure the hon. Member that they have been carefully weighed. They were scrupulously weighed seven or eight years ago by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary, and it is fair to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of what happened then.

In 1948, the Home Secretary issued instructions whereby prisoners might be allowed, as they were not until then, under certain conditions to write to a Member of Parliament of their choice to complain about their detention or treatment in prison. In July, 1949, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that experience of that concession had shown certain limitations to be necessary in the interests of maintaining disciplne and the proper management of prisoners.

The hon. Member asked what valid grounds we had for continuing the system. I should like to recall to him the words which were used on that occasion by the right hon. Member for South Shields, the validity of which the passage of time has done little or nothing to change. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said: Hon. Members will appreciate that if a prisoner is to be allowed to use a letter to a Member of Parliament for the purpose of making complaints about his treatment, which he would not be allowed to make in an ordinary letter, and which he has never made to the prison authorities, the result would be that a prisoner could by-pass the appointed channels for the investigation of such complaints, and could make with impunity the most malicious and unfounded allegations against particular officers. This seems to be most undesirable and likely eventually to undermine the authority of the Visiting Committee or Board of Visitors who are the independent check on prison administration for which Parliament has made provision. He went on to say that he and the Secretary for Scotland proposed: … to issue instructions that a prisoner shall not be allowed to make complaints about his prison treatment in a letter to a Member unless he has already exhausted his right of making the complaint through the proper channels in one or other of the ways I have mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1949; Vol. 467, c. 182.] What we have to consider is whether circumstances have so changed since then, or whether experience has brought to light afresh anything which makes a change in the principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman now desirable. That is the test of what the hon. Gentleman has said tonight. I know of nothing that has been brought before this House and nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said tonight which would lead me or anyone else to that conclusion.

Mr. Collins

Is the hon. Gentleman going on to deal with the fact that after the prisoner has submitted the petition to the governor and to the Home Secretary, and has earned his right to write-to his Member, in many instances letters are then suppressed?

Mr. Deedes

I shall come to that.

I know how very carefully the right hon. Gentleman whose remarks I have referred to weighed this situation, and how closely he went into the matter before he laid down this practice which has been continued for the last seven years. There is no evidence that it has not worked as I think he hoped it would work. It has not been questioned in this House hitherto and no evidence has been brought to support the suggestion that it has been used to suppress complaints by prisoners.

I should like to explain just how this censorship has worked and what it amounts to. Some remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made tonight have implied that it is quite whimsical and therefore unjust. On the contrary, it is confined to very clear limits. In Prison Standing Orders are listed certain matters—probably the hon. Gentleman has read them, but I must put them on record—which may not be included in any letters written by prisoners. It looks rather a formidable list at first sight—a list of what is held to be "objectionable matter".

In practice it is interpreted much more liberally in respect of letters to M.P.s than in respect of other letters because it is recognised that the prisoner is writing to a responsible person. I list the objections. Enclosures sent to Members for transmission to the Home Office are no longer considered objectionable. They were once; they are not now. "Threats of violence", "matter intended for insertion in the Press" and "grossly improper language" are three of the six categories. I think they speak for themselves.

Mr. Collins

I went through all those in my speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear.

Mr. Deedes

Then there is complaints about the Courts and the police which are deliberately calculated to hold the authorities up to contempt. Provided the prisoner does not scandalise the court, he can, of course, include complaints about the court which convicted or sentenced him or dealt with his appeal, and he can make adverse comment about the police, provided this is relevant to his own conviction and sentence. He is not allowed to indulge in general abuse of either.

I ought to add a word about attempts to stimulate public agitation about matters other than the prisoner's own conviction and sentence. That would certainly not be interpreted as precluding attempts to persuade a Member of Parliament to raise a matter in the House of Commons.

That is one half of the censorship. The second is, apart from these categories of objectionable matter, the broad principle that a prisoner is not allowed to make complaints about his prison treatment in a letter to a Member unless he has already exhausted his right of making the complaint through the proper channels. That is a point to which the hon. Gentleman takes particular exception.

I should add that allegations against prison officers fall into this category, and I think that that is of special importance, because the Secretary of State has a duty to protect prison officers against false and malicious accusations. To make such an allegation is, by statutory rule, an offence against prison discipline. It would be embarrassing to the Secretary of State to have to take disciplinary action on something said by a prisoner in a letter to a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Collins

Even if it were true?

Mr. Deedes

"False and malicious accusations" was the expression I used.

Generally it is held, and I think it is an unexceptionable principle which successive Administrations have upheld, that those responsible for prison administration must have the first opportunity of examining complaints against the administration, and to put them right if they are substantiated. The hon. Gentleman did say that that was open to abuse. But what system is not open to abuse? I say it is false to suggest that this has been, or would be, used for the suppression of letters complaining of prison conditions.

What then happens when a prisoner writes to his Member of Parliament? It is not as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The letter would be passed by the censoring officer to the governor, and therefore would not be dealt with by an anonymous prison officer, as was suggested. The governor would read it without delay, and if it conformed with the rules, it would be forwarded by the next post. I know that the hon. Gentleman asked a question about a letter over which there was some unaccountable delay, but not because of censorship. If the governor is doubtful, he has to refer the matter to the Prison Commissioners, and such references have immediate priority. If they decide that the letter should be sent, it is posted at once. If they decide that it should not be sent, the governor is informed immediately. In every case of refusal, the prisoner is told, and given the chance of rewriting the letter. Rewriting does not mean suppression or editing of the substance of his complaint, unless it is one against prison treatment not yet investigated.

The rules governing prisoners' correspondence with Members of Parliament are set out in the information folder which every prisoner has in his possession, and therefore the prisoner knows exactly where he stands.

Until recently it was the practice to copy such letters. The hon. Gentleman asked a question about that. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary acknowledged the other day, this might have led to slight delay and the practice has now stopped. No copies are now taken.

To sum up, censorship of prisoners' letters has two main features: to prevent objectionable matter. That requires, I think, no justification; secondly, so that complaints about prison administration and staff should not be forwarded to hon. Members until they have been investigated. That has been regarded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Chuter Ede) as indispensable to the proper management of prisons, and nothing has happened in recent years to change the Secretary of State's opinion.

Mr. Collins

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the question of suppression? He has said that there is no evidence of any abuse and no evidence that letters are suppressed. I and other hon. Members are often receiving letters from the Home Secretary admitting that letters have been suppressed. I have quoted:5ve examples today.

Mr. Deedes

We do not mean the same thing by "suppression"; we are using the word in different terms. Letters will not be sent if they do not comply with the Regulations. That is not suppression.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Twelve o'clock.