Miss Pat Arrowsmith

HC Deb 24 October 1961 vol 646 cc728-34

29. Mrs. Butler

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken with regard to the forcible feeding of Miss Pat Arrowsmith on hunger-strike in Gateside Prison; and whether he will make a statement.

34. Mr. Driberg

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the case of Miss Pat Arrowsmith, on the reasons why it was considered necessary to feed her forcibly, and on the methods used in feeding her.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)

Miss Arrowsmith refused, after breakfast on 6th October, to take further meals, in protest against the sewing by other women prisoners of canvas bags which could be used as sandbags. To maintain her health the medical officer decided that artificial feeding was necessary, and this was undertaken on a total of four occasions on 11th, 12th and 13th October. Miss Arrowsmith made no physical resistance. She took a light meal on the afternoon of 16th October and, under medical supervision, she has been taking food regularly since.

Mrs. Butler

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable deep concern about this case? In view of that, and the fact that many people think that Miss Arrowsmith has already suffered enough, will he intervene to secure her immediate release?

Mr. Maclay

I have no power to interfere with the decisions of the court and cannot answer for the court of appeal. I have considered the question of recommending the use of the Prerogative, but I do not consider that in the circumstances it would be right for me to do so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this forcible feeding was carried out by means of a rubber tube in Miss Arrowsmith's mouth and it was done before there was any sign that she was suffering as a result of her hunger strike? Is he aware that there are still in this country suffragettes who recall with horror experience of this kind in prison? Is it not time that he took a definite line to stop this?

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Member is making an imputation on the good faith of the medical officer who gave the decision that this was necessary. The decision was taken in the interests of Miss Arrowsmith's health by the medical officer after she had been five days without food. It was purely a medical decision. It is quite wrong to cast reflections on the decision of the medical officer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between forcible and artificial feeding, which was in the communication to the Press?

Mr. Maclay

Artificial feeding is carried out by means of a tube, as the hon. Member suggested, and forcible feeding has always been used in my understanding to describe the situation in which the individual concerned resists. There was no resistance on the part of Miss Arrowsmith.

Mr. Rankin

Does the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he has no power to mitigate a sentence? I take it from his attitude that he has such power. Does not he think that, assuming Miss Arrowsmith did something which she ought not to have done, her act has invoked sufficient punishment already? Would he reconsider this matter and use the powers he has got?

Mr. Maclay

If the hon. Member will look at my original supplementary answer he will see exactly what I said. Of course I have power to recommend the use of the Prerogative, but I considered the position and decided that I could not do so in this case.

Mrs. Hart

Is the Secretary of State aware that those of us who visited Gateside Prison while Miss Arrow-smith was on hunger strike—and I was one who carried out such a visit—came away with the clear impression that, so far as the Secretary of State was concerned, this system of forcible feeding could continue until the end of her sentence? Is he further aware that there is a clear indication that, if the Scottish Office cared enough about the affront to the public conscience of Britain, this matter could have been cleared up before?

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Lady should not say that kind of thing. The strictest procedure was followed. I have no power to interfere with decisions of the courts except in the circumstances I have described. Artificial feeding was done on medical grounds. I do not understand what the hon. Lady means by saying that it could have gone on until the end of her sentence. If the medical officer advised us that it was necessary, of course it would, but at the moment it is not necessary.

Mr. Shinwell

Apart from the question of forcible feeding or artificial feeding, whatever me might call it, was not the sentence a vicious one?

Mr. Speaker

That is a different question altogether. All we are dealing with here is a matter of the feeding of this lady in prison.

36. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now release Miss Pat Arrowsmith from Greenock prison.

Mr. Maclay

No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun

Will the Minister at least end the solitary confinement which Miss Arrowsmith is suffering at the moment and give her an assurance that she will not lose the normal one month's remission of this savage three months' sentence? Secondly, what does he suppose history will think of men who jailed a fine and courageous woman for demonstrating in a non-violent way—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Allaun

—against the nuclear madness of both East and West?

Mr. Speaker

That appears to be out of order as being a criticism, accompanied by epithets, of the sentence, in respect of which there is no Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Allaun

It is not a criticism. Am I not entitled to suggest that the sentence is vicious, harsh and severe?

Mr. Speaker

No, not to this Minister. He is not responsible for the sentence. That is the point.

Mr. Allaun

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Secretary of State told the House earlier that he had the right to seek the Royal Prerogative.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Member is not following me. It is a perfectly fair point. If the hon. Gentleman wants to criticise the sentence he must take other steps, because the Minister is not responsible for the sentence. The Minister may have powers relating to the Prerogative, but criticising the sentence is not inviting him, in the form of the question the hon. Member put, to exercise the Prerogative in any way.

Mr. T. Fraser

Further to that point of order. On many occasions at Question Time I have heard hon. Members ask Ministers if they agreed that sen- tences for many offences were far too light. Ministers have on frequent occasions agreed that sentences were far too light. The Home Secretary has said many times that in respect of certain offences he would be very pleased if the courts could impose higher sentences. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why it is in order to ask the Home Secretary in respect of one type of offence to urge the courts to increase the sentences but it is out of order to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of other sentences to seek a reduction of the sentences.

Mr. Speaker

I can understand circumstances in which a discussion of the penalty for a given class of offence might be in order. What is not in order, as I understand it, because there is no Ministerial responsibility, is to invite the Minister to criticise a sentence in a specific case. That is quite distinct from asking him to exercise the Prerogative. I would not say that I have not heard questions of that kind, either in the Chair or without, but if it happened when I was in the Chair I was negligent in not stopping it.

Mr. Manuel

Further to that point of order. Your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, is that it could possibly be in order if it was not a specific case. My supplementary question which was ruled out of order was directed to the whole range of fines and sentences and not to any one specific case. Is not that rather a contradiction?

Mr. Speaker

I took the hon. Member's question as being related to the people involved, or alleged to have been involved, and dealt with in respect of this one incident, this one demonstration.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of order. Do I understand that there is something out of order in asking the appropriate Minister to advise the Crown to exercise the Prerogative of mercy in a particular case?

Mr. Speaker

No. I repeatedly said that I did not disapprove of that course.

Mr. Silverman

If that is not out of order and one may press a Minister to use that power in a specific case, it can only be because those who wish to press him in this way consider that the sentence is excessive. As long as that suggestion is made without imputing wrong motives to the judges who imposed it. is there anything wrong with it?

Mr. Speaker

There is. I would have to look at the exact text, but the form of the question which first aroused my attention invited the Minister to express a view adverse to the sentence of the court. It is that which I conceive to be wrong, because he is not responsible for it.

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Gentleman asked a supplementary question which I think is proper and which I was on the point of answering. He asked whether I would consider remitting the sentence. I have carefully considered the circumstances of Miss Arrowsmith's case in the light of my power to recommend the exercise of the Prerogative. I have reached the conclusion that there are no grounds for action on my part.

Mr. Allaun

Apart from the fact that I think that that is very wrong, may I ask the Secretary of State to reply to the previous supplementary question, which was whether he intends to keep Miss Arrowsmith in solitary confinement?

Mr. Maclay

Miss Arrowsmith must be subject to the normal prison rules, and I cannot go behind them.

Mr. W. Baxter

In view of the severity of the sentence and the obvious personal prejudice of the sheriff in this instance—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot say that. He must take other steps if he wants to raise that point.

Mr. Baxter

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I now ask if the Secretary of State is prepared to have an inquiry to see if the person sitting on the bench on this occasion—

Mr. Speaker

Order. No; it requires other procedure. The hon. Member cannot do that in a question.

Mr. Baxter

On a point of order. What procedure can I adopt, Mr. Speaker, to bring clearly to the House—

Mr. Speaker

I think that we ought not to pursue it. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member in this way. If he wants to criticise the conduct or qualifications of some person in a judicial position in that way, he must put down a Motion for the purpose. It cannot be done at Question Time.

Mr. Baxter

I give notice that I will put down such a Motion.