HC Deb 27 January 1959 vol 598 cc1027-36

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

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Walter H. Loveys (Chichester)

I gather, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is somewhat unusual for a new Member of the House to ask for the indulgence of the House on an Adjournment debate, but it so happens that a matter of the gravest concern to many of my constituents has arisen, and, therefore, I feel it my duty to take this opportunity of airing the matter here tonight. Before doing so, I would like to say what a great honour I feel it is to succeed as Member for Chichester a man who has now been transported to another place and who served this House faithfully for sixteen years.

I say straight away that I entirely approve of the principal of open prisons, and it is only after very much consideration that I have to come to the conclusion that I cannot approve of the Prison Commissioners' scheme to introduce an open prison at Ford, in my constituency. In considering this matter, I took the opportunity of visiting an open prison on the Isle of Sheppey, and what an excellent place it is. I enjoyed my visit very much and I thank the Prison Commissioners for their courtesy in showing me round that open prison.

However, Sheppey is an island and there is only one route to the mainland, which makes it an ideal place. But even at Sheppey, where there is little chance of abscondence, 33 people absconded last year, although that was a bad year and I understand that the average is 2 per cent.

I feel I must disprove of the attempt of the Prison Commissioners to make an open prison at Ford for three reasons. One is because it would so seriously affect the amenities of the district. The second is because it would so seriously affect the livelihood of many of my constituents. The third is because it would give so many opportunities and temptations for the prisoners themselves to escape.

First, I will say something about the effect on the amenities of the district. It is my pleasure to represent the most delightful constituency in the United Kingdom. On our northern boundary we have what is now universally called "glorious Goodwood" and on our southern boundary we have stretches of the finest sands on the South Coast. Now, in the middle, the Prison Commissioners wish to put an open prison. Many families come to the South Coast, many young children come every year to enjoy the bathing facilities, and parents will think twice about bringing their families to this holiday spot if they know that there is an open prison a short distance away.

Also, we have a large residential area of thousands of elderly people who have chosen to spend the evening of their life in this spot, which will be only a few miles away from this open prison. I do not assume that the prisoners will harm these old people, but whatever we' say, whatever explanations we give them, whatever figures we produce, there is no doubt that there will be fear in their minds.

My second point is that this will seriously affect the livelihood of so many of my constituents. We have a holiday trade which is an important consideration in that area. Of course, people will be reluctant to come to that area with their families knowing that there is an open prison within a few miles. The hotel, restaurant and caravan industries are bound to be affected. We have many large caravan sites and holiday camps within a few miles of the proposed open prison. A large holiday camp is to be built next year on the Ford side of Bognor Regis. There are already signs of the values of the properties in the locality declining considerably.

There is an excellent, old-established girls' school right on the borders, and there are also several boys' schools in the locality. I do not suggest that the prisoners would necessarily interfere with the girls or boys, but I ask all hon. Members who have children whether they would like to send their daughters to a school if they knew that the school was situated within half a mile of an open prison.

In our district are many men who go to work in the large industrial areas around Portsmouth and other industrial towns, and they have told me that they would be horrified to think that they would have to go away to work and leave their wives and children within a few miles of an open prison. It may be that these fears are unfounded, but whatever we do or say, those fears are very real, and I am sure that it is right that we should take them into consideration.

Finally, there is the question of the many opportunities and temptations for the prisoners in an open prison to escape from Ford. There is a public road which goes right through the middle of the proposed site. I do not know—perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department could tell me—whether there are any other open prisons with a public road passing through the middle. I understand that there is one with a road running alongside, but in this case there is a public road right through the middle of the proposed site and, of course, my constituents are afraid that if the Prison Commissioners get this site the first thing they will want to do will be to close the public road.

There is a bus service every quarter of an hour only a few hundred yards away from the proposed site, and there is a railway also a few hundred yards away. On the other side, only a few yards away, there is a river with plenty of small boats. In fact, I can honestly say that if prisoners wished to abscond they would have an opportunity to do so by train, or by road, or by boat.

In addition, there is a caravan site not far away. What an opportunity, if anyone should wish to abscond, to have an accomplice in the caravan site, with a change of clothing and all the other necessities, only a few hundred yards away.

I know that it is the custom that maiden speeches should be brief, and I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, but I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether I could have an assurance that there will be a full public inquiry before the Prison Commissioners take any action in connection with their proposed plans; and, secondly, whether compensation would be paid to the many people whose livelihood would be affected if there were an open prison situated at Ford.

I am daily receiving numbers of letters opposing the scheme. I have received letters from the Chichester Rural District Council, the Bognor Regis Urban District Council, parish councils, the Felpham Association of Ratepayers, and the Bognor Regis Hotel and Restaurant Association, and many personal letters. The West Sussex County Council has not yet announced its decision, but I know that the local representative is wholeheartedly against the scheme. In my large post-bag I have not had one letter approving of the Prison Commissioners' proposals for Ford.

Surely there are more suitable sites in the country. I should like to assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am not being parochial-minded about the matter. I do not have an un-Christian attitude towards the treatment of prisoners. I approve of the principle of open prisons and would welcome an open prison in my constituency if I could have an assurance, first that it did not so seriously affect the amenities of the district; secondly, that it did not so seriously affect the livelihood of so many of Her Majesty's loyal subjects; and, thirdly, that it did not give so many opportunities and temptations for prisoners to escape. I can honestly say that I consider that Ford is not such a place.

10.37 p.m.

Captain Henry Kerby (Arundel and Shoreham)

I am grateful for this opportunity of being able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) in what must be one of the most able maiden speeches made in this House for many years, a speech upon which I congratulate him most warmly.

The south-western tip of my constituency adjoins and marches with the threatened area at Ford. The peace of mind of about 20,000 of my constituents and the very livelihood of a very large number of them are directly threatened by these rash proposals on the part of the Prison Commissioners. I speak on their behalf as also on behalf of the two local authorities in my constituency directly concerned, namely, the Little-hampton Urban District Council and the ancient Borough of Arundel, both of which oppose and condemn the proposals in the strongest possible terms.

The establishment of a so-called open prison in the heart of an area which depends for its very livelihood upon every aspect and ramification of the family holiday trade, an area which abounds in schools, nursing homes and convalescent homes and which is peopled by thousands of very elderly retired folk, invalids, caravan and houseboat dwellers, is fraught with the very greatest danger. It would be a tragic and disastrous mistake, difficult and expensive to rectify and the very reverse of so-called planning.

The local planning authority is the West Sussex County Council, but, as usual in such cases of Crown development, the County Council seems to be "sitting pretty", on the fence. The county planners should come off the fence and reject out of hand these dangerous and anti-social proposals of the Prison Commissioners. They would then be supporting every other local authority directly concerned and defending the highest interests of the county.

Is this another Crichel Down? Was this valuable agricultural land offered back to its original owners, or in the open market, when the Admiralty had no further use for it? If not, why not? I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will have second thoughts and instruct the Prison Commissioners to have third thoughts and to withdraw their sinister proposals for Ford. At the same time, and in view of the most violent local objections, may we please have an immediate and public inquiry before the pass is sold behind our backs by the West Sussex County Council?

If there is an open prison at Ford, it will be a prison with no bars and no walls. There will be nothing to fence in hundreds of convicted criminals. There will be nothing to segregate them from 30,000 or 40,000 law-abiding citizens in West Sussex. If common sense and common justice rather than sloppy sentimentality are to prevail it simply means that a much longer and more expensive wall will have to be erected around the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and my own constituency, for if there is nothing to keep the criminals in we shall be forced to keep them out.

Is this planning? Is this justice? In my opinion, it is sentimentality run mad.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham)

I am fully aware of the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has a very short time left in which to answer the debate, but being, in a sense, the nigger in the woodpile, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words and to start by adding my praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) on his maiden speech. I hope that, in the circumstances, he will accept that as sufficient acknowledgement, although I hope that we shall hear him many times.

The original plan for this prison without bars was that it should be within my constituency in an area called Itchingfield and within 300 yards of a home for maladjusted boys. In addition, there were many other detrimental factors to the siting of the prison at that spot. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) both said that, in principle, they agreed with the idea of open prisons.

Captain Kerby indicated dissent.

Mr. Gough

Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester does, and if my hon. and gallant Friend does not, that only weakens his case. Surely it is better to find the best site in Sussex. I am sure that every Sussex Member will agree that we must take the same responsibility as any other part of Britain for this experiment of open prisons and that we must find the best site available.

Here is a disused airfield with houses for the warders and with good amenities and with bus routes for the children of the warders, and so on. Escape has been mentioned. Surely the one idea of a prisoner who escapes—and there are not many of them—is to get out of the district. I am prepared to leave the case in the hands of my hon. and learned Friend, but I urge that the original plan to site the prison at Itchingfield next to a home for maladjusted boys was obviously wrong. I believe that in that area Ford represents the best site.

10.44 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) on his maiden speech. Perhaps I may also congratulate him on his modesty, because it is a form of modesty to choose an Adjournment debate at the end of the main business of the day for such an important occasion as making a maiden speech. I know of no precedent for it.

At the same time, there is no more effective way of serving one's constituents than that which my hon. Friend has chosen, namely, by telling the House of the anxieties which one's constituents feel about the proposals of a Government Department or public authority. Looking back to my own maiden speech and to those of many other hon. Members, I suggest that my hon. Friend is to be congratulated upon the ease and poise which he displayed on this occasion.

While my hon. Friend has properly brought to the notice of the House the problems that he anticipates if an open prison is established on the site at Ford Aerodrome, I am sorry to say that at present there is little that I can do to oblige him, for reasons which I will explain. He will see that at present it is not in my hands, or in the hands of the Home Secretary.

As the House well knows, the prison population is increasing at an alarming rate. Two years ago it was 20,000 and now it is over 26,000. About 6,000 men are sleeping three in a cell, a deplorable state of affairs. A building programme on a considerable scale is being planned for new prisons and Borstals, but it must be some years before that will appreciably ease the situation. Meanwhile, the need for more accommodation is immediate and urgent, and it can be met only by more open prisons, of which I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) both approve in principle.

We are in a dilemma which is not an unusual one. While the need and the principle are willingly accepted by all hon. Members, no hon. Member, at first sight, is willing to accept an open prison in his own constituency. That is very human and natural. But I think that were inquiry to be made in the neighbourhood of open prisons which have been established now for some years it would be found that the early fears had been forgotten, and that the prisons were accepted as good, and even as welcome, neighbours. I hasten to add that I have an open Borstal in my own constituency.

I can assure the House that premises suitable for conversion are not easy to find. Ford Aerodrome, which is a redundant Royal Naval Air Service establishment in the occupation and ownership of the Crown, was brought to the notice of the Commissioners as an alternative to another site which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, and which they first wished to acquire. In the face of strong objections to that proposal they agreed to consider Ford Aerodrome and found that it was well suited to their needs. It requires an unusually small expenditure on conversion, and will provide two separate establishments to accommodate up to 600 men. One of the establishments would be for elderly prisoners and the other for selected men, most of whom would be in prison for the first time. All of them would be specially chosen as being suitable for detaining in open conditions.

Since the siting of a new prison almost invariably raises local objections there is a well-established procedure for dealing with them. The first step is for the Prison Commissions to discuss the project with the local planning authority, in this case the West Sussex County Council. I was sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) did not display the trust which one normally accords to one's own local authority. In the present case a meeting has been arranged to take place later this week between the Prison Commissioners and that planning authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester asked whether there would be a full inquiry. The position is that if the Commissioners and the planning authority fail to reach agreement, the next step is for local people to ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government to appoint an inspector to hold a public inquiry and there the views of all concerned can be fully and publicly ventilated.

The House will, therefore, appreciate, in view of what I have said, that this matter is in effect sub judice. That being so, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss in detail all the points put by my hon. Friends.

To sum up, the position is this: there must be more open prisons. There are very few suitable sites available. Whichever sites are selected they are bound to raise some local objections. Those local objections are, however, impartially considered so that a decision can be taken as to where the balance of public interest lies. I hope that the House will be able to accept that that is as far as I can go tonight.

I conclude by saying that the Prison Commissioners will be grateful for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends tonight and will pay due attention to them, especially to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, on whose initiative this matter was raised and in whose constituency the proposed site lies. Equally, I am sure that my hon. Friends will remain aware of the urgent need which greatly trouble my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for more prison accommodation.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett (Croydon, North-East)

Would my hon. and learned Friend confirm, for the sake of the record, one point which I did not quite follow? Is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) correct, that the reason for the change of site was to avoid having this prison close to a home for maladjusted children?

Mr. Renton

I think that that would be oversimplifying the matter. The Prison Commissioners, needing an open prison in the South of England, considered a number of sites. On first consideration the site at Itchingfield seemed suitable, but then various objections were made to that site and were brought to the notice of the Prison Commissioners. In the light of those objections, they decided that they could not pursue that proposal any further and proceeded to consider other available sites in the area. Ford aerodrome appealed to them because, from the point of view of accommodation and position, it seemed suitable. But that is not the end of the matter. They have made their proposals to the local planning authority and it is now for the local planning authority to give its views on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingy at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.