HC Deb 29 March 1965 vol 709 cc1355-64

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

10.57 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke (Portsmouth, West)

I have put down a number of Questions regarding the problem of a prisoner called Niven Craig. This man was let out under the hostels scheme after a very long career of crime, and it is a mystery to me, from the Answers I have had from the Minister of State, as to why he was let out at all.

I am glad to have this debate in order to clear away a number of doubts relating to the hostels scheme, in general, and to Craig, in particular. I would say here and now that I am thoroughly in favour of the hostels scheme, I think it should be extended and that it should be fair and appear to be fair to all concerned. At the moment, however, a number of people, including most of those now in prison, believe that the scheme is thoroughly unfair and badly administered. This is not a party matter. Whichever party is in power has a duty to see that any penal reform is properly and fairly carried out.

I understand that Craig has a considerable part of his prison sentence to serve, and that the hostels scheme was designed to rehabilitate prisoners of good conduct and help them to get back into civil life and once more be useful citizens. In 1960, Craig was released under the hostels scheme after a terrible record, which I will read shortly, and he abused the privilege. Within a few months of being put on the hostel scheme, almost a few weeks, he committed an armed robbery. For that he received another long sentence. If that was not good enough, Niven Craig, back in prison again, in 1961 took part in a mass breakout from prison. For that he received another sentence. In October 1961, having been sentenced again, he was back in prison, and today he is the first person I know of to be signed on the hostel scheme again. First, he did nearly nine months on the hostel scheme, although I have always understood that the hostel scheme was meant for people in the last six months of their sentence, so that it was peculiar that he should have gone on it for nine months. He now has nearly 4½years to serve, and he is once more on the hostel scheme in spite of his very bad record.

I have been asking Questions about this man pretty regularly. On 18th February, the hon. Lady the Minister of State told me, when I asked how many people had been on the hostel scheme more than once, that the number was one. I then asked how many times Niven Craig had been in prison and on what charge he had been convicted in each case. The hon. Lady replied: It would be contrary to long-standing practice to publish the information in my possession about any previous conviction which a prisoner may have; but I am writing to the hon. and gallant Member about the case. I got the Minister"s letter a month later, after I had put down this Adjournment debate last week. Waiting a month for an answer is itself a bit peculiar.

I then asked how many more years, taking into account full remission dates, Niven Craig had to serve in prison, and the answer was: On the basis of ordinary remission Craig has at present four years and eight months of his current sentence still to serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th Feb., 1965; Vol. 706, c. 265.] That does not accord with my information that one goes on to the hostel scheme only in the last six months of one"s service.

I should like to quote—these quotations can be checked elsewhere—what two judges have said about this man Niven Craig: You are very exceptionally dangerous, quite cool and cold blooded. That was Lord Justice Hilbery. And You are a dangerous criminal. That was Mr. Justice Havers.

This man has been in prison nearly all his life. I have asked the hon. Lady many Questions about him and she has replied that there are very exceptional circumstances about Niven Craig. She has had many opportunities to tell me what those exceptional circumstances are, but so far nothing has come to light.

On 25th March, in reply to a supplementary Question from a colleague of mine—I was not here on that day—who asked: Could not the hon. Lady admit that Craig in fact is now for the second time on the hostel scheme? Is not this rather extraordinary, since at the moment the term of his sentence should take him to about 1973? the hon. Lady replied: Yes. Craig has been treated exceptionally and, as I tried to point out in the previous reply on the case, this is an exceptional case in that he has been in prison for 12 years and, so far as I am aware, there is no other prisoner in any prison in the country who has been in that number of years other than a life prisoner. Although he may be treated exceptionally, this is a rather exceptional case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 729–30.] It was an exceptional case in that he was an extremely bad prisoner and, if one wanted to take the worst prisoner in the world, one would seem to have the right man in Niven Craig.

Also, from what I gather, he has been visited by a number of people, amongst whom there are a couple of "do gooders", the Earl of Longford and Lord Stonham, who have taken an extreme interest in this man"s case, as, of course, they are entitled to do, just as any back bencher here is entitled to take up the question of any other person who may be in gaol. It is stated that Niven Craig has received some unusual visitors, among them Lord Stonham, and I know that Lord Stonham has been visiting and taking an extreme interest in this prisoner. That is all perfectly in order, and there is no reason why he should not, but I have now had a very large number of letters from Dartmoor, Pentonville, Wormwood Scrubs, and all gaols, saying there is no good in behaving well in prison and all that really matters is whom you know and not how you behave.

If that is going to happen to the hostel scheme, the whole thing will break down and will he in complete disrepute. It is essential that prisoners should believe that every prisoner has a proper right to be considered for the hostel scheme and that each one will be considered regardless of whom he knows or who is trying to get him out of gaol. That is my view, and I stick to it.

Since I first put down a Question to the Minister of State I have been inundated with letters from prisoners, and not only prisoners but their wives as well. I personally think that this scheme should be extended, but not if influence is to be brought to bear on individual cases whom some lord may take up, or some back bench Member may take up, and if this man has a special right to be a favourite. I do not say that that is what has happened. All I am asking the Minister of State is to assure me that there has been no favouritism whatsoever in the case of this man, because she is going to find it very difficult to persuade those in prison that that is in point of fact what has happened.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think one can leave it vague. The hon. and gallant Member ought to make it quite clear that he is not suggesting that any improper influence was exercised in any way. All he is saying is all right if that be made plain. That is all.

Brigadier Clarke

I am not suggesting that anything improper has happened at all. What I wish to ask the Minister of State before I sit down is that we should have a public inquiry into why this man, the worst man I can find who ever went to gaol, has twice been let out on the hostel scheme when no other man has ever been let out on a hostel scheme twice before.

The hon. Lady in answer to another Question said that, apart from those on life sentence, no one has been out on this scheme, and it was because he is the only man serving a long term other than a life sentence.

I have a number of letters from people who are not on life sentence, and I have one in particular from a man who is on life sentence whose name is Holmes. I visited this man in Pentonville. He had been there for a very long time indeed. He is an extremely intelligent man, and he was let out on the hostel scheme. He had done six months on the hostel scheme, although the hon. Lady said he was out for a fortnight. She said that in reply to a Question from another hon. Member. My information is that he was out for six months; he was pulled back but given no information whatsoever why he was pulled back. I would ask, what is the good of putting a man on a hostel scheme and then, after he has been in over ten years, pulling him back into gaol, giving him no answer whatsoever why he is pulled back, and leaving him there?

Holmes is alleged to be a "lifer". In fact, he received a sentence of ten years and he appealed, and on appeal his sentence was changed to life. Now, whatever he does, if he gets drunk in the street, he can be pulled back and left in gaol for the rest of his life. That is something the Minister might well change and see that these people, after ten years, when they must be peculiar by any standard, should be given a chance to rehabilitate themselves properly and take their place properly amongst ordinary citizens.

There is another man I have been there to see at his request on the same problem, and his name is Michael Ali. My only reason for raising his case tonight is that he has written to me twice to say that he is now being ill-treated. The Governor told me at the time that he and Holmes were model prisoners, but Michael Ali now complains that he is being persecuted because he saw a Member of Parliament. I cannot vouch for that—I have not been to see him again; I cannot spend half my time going to gaol to sort out these problems—but perhaps the Minister will make inquiry about Michael Ali"s treatment since I saw him and what happened to him before. One of my hon. Friends wants to have a word about Holmes, in whose case he has been interested, and then I should like to hear a reply from the Minister.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

I should like to raise briefly three rather strange features of this case. First, as regards sentence, we have been told that Craig received three sentences as an adolescent, another in the Army and three more since. Holmes, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) has referred, had one sentence for rape, which was increased on appeal to life imprisonment. This is a time when we are told that even murderers should not stay in prison for more than nine years, as has been said in the House recently.

As regards imprisonment, Craig has served eight years and another four years and three months, and he has had three months" hostel treatment. Holmes served nine years and eight months and, according to official information, has had two weeks" hostel treatment. He asked to be transferred to Hull, to be near his home, but is request was not granted.

With regard to rehabilitation, Craig is allowed to work outside the prison. Holmes has had eight months in prison since his licence was revoked for failure to co-operate with the Central After-Care Association.

Both Home Secretaries who have been concerned with this affair are men whom we respect and whose justice and fairness is without question, but these three features which I have mentioned show that justice does not seem to have been done. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain in a little more detail that justice has been done.

11.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon)

Before I deal with the case of Niven Craig, I should like to say a word about the man Holmes, whose case has just been raised. Holmes was in prison serving a life sentence for the rape of an 11-year-old-girl. He was put on the hostel scheme. He came out of prison on licence after nine years. As the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) knows, because he came to see me about the case and discussed it for an hour, Holmes deliberately refused to leave his address with the after-care people who were looking after him. We thought that, having regard to his previous crime, the rape of an 11-year-old girl, we could no longer leave at large a man who refused to leave his address with the after-care people.

Mr. Wall

rose——

Miss Bacon

I cannot be interrupted; there is not time. That was why we brought Holmes back to prison. Indeed, last Wednesday morning, when we were discussing the Bill to abolish the death penalty, we were urged to exercise more control over life prisoners who were out on licence.

Now I turn to the question of Niven Craig. I understand the motives which have led the hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise this case. It is understandable that the decision to transfer Niven Craig to a prison hostel should cause some public concern, because here is a man who undoubtedly has a bad record of serious crime. I am not denying that. He still has some years of his prison sentence to serve, and yet he has been transferred to the less restricted conditions of a hostel and allowed to take outside employment. I hope to be able to reassure the House that this decision was not taken lightly or hastily, but only after the most careful consideration, and because my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was satisfied that on the merits this was the appropriate course to take, and one that seemed likely in the long term to serve the public interest best.

I should like to correct some misapprehensions about Craig"s position. He has not been released from his sentence, nor has he been promised early release. He is still serving the term of imprisonment imposed on him, and the prison hostel where lie lives is part of the prison at Wormwood Scrubs. In common with other hostel prisoners he goes out to work daily for a private employer. This work was found for him, and he cannot change it without permission. He is paid normal wages, out of which he is required to pay for his board and lodging at the hostel. He is allowed a weekly sum for his fares, expenses, and pocket money not exceeding 30s. a week, and the remainder is saved for his final discharge.

He is allowed to visit his sister at weekends, and, if he wishes, he may spend one or two evenings away from the hostel for a specific purpose agreed to by the prison authorities. Other hosteliers are not subject to such strict conditions about the use of their leisure time. These temporary releases to go to work and to visit his sister at weekends are authorised under Rule 6 of the Prison Rules which permit the temporary release of any sentenced person for any special purpose, or to enable him to engage in employment, to receive institutional training, or to assist him in his transition from prison life to freedom. When he is away from the hostel he may be recalled at any time, and he may at any time be taken off the hostel scheme and made subject to the normal prison régime again.

As a matter of administrative practice a prisoner does not normally go to the hostel scheme until he is within six months of his date of release, but there is no rule about this at all. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that although it is usually the practice that it is the last six months, there is no rule about this at all. Where Craig has been treated differently is that it was decided to put him on the hostel scheme with more than four years of his sentence still to serve, and it is that decision that I want to justify tonight.

The events which led to this decision may be said to have begun about a year ago, in the early part of 1964. Before that, Craig, like many other prisoners, had submitted petitions about his case, and representations had been made on his behalf, but nothing had come to light to justify any action on the part of the then Home Secretary. Early in 1964 Craig petitioned again, asking the Home Secretary, who was then the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), to review his case and to give him a chance.

Like all petitions and representations on behalf of prisoners, this was carefully considered, and certain features were noted about the case which suggested that it might be exceptional. Here was a man aged 38, still comparatively young, who had been continuously in prison since 1952 and who, if he served his last sentence, would not come out at the earliest before October, 1969. This was after 17 years continuously in prison and much longer than is served by most people who are undergoing life imprisonment.

This by itself would not be sufficient to justify special treatment, but coupled with this were indications of a changed attitude on Craig"s part. There was good reason to believe that he was sickened by the life of crime and determined to go straight if given the chance. Craig himself said this in his petition, but more significant were reports from prison staff, who knew him well, that they believed that these statements were sincere.

In order that the matter could be more fully considered, full reports, based on observations over prolonged periods, were obtained from prison, including reports by medical experts covering Craig"s present mental and physical condition and the likely effect on him of completing his sentence, his response to prison training, the risk that he might again turn to crime and the prospects of his resettlement. These reports showed that the most recent sentences—those imposed in 1961—appeared to have given Craig a severe jolt and to have changed his whole outlook towards crime. He was at the present time determined to go straight and to make the most of any opportunities afforded to him to lead an honest life. The prospects of rehabilitation were good.

Against this, the reports indicated that if Craig were made to serve his sentence in full he would almost certainly deteriorate, and any hope of rehabilitation would be completely destroyed by further lengthy imprisonment. Here was a situation demanding a constructive and imaginative use of the prison system, and a bold and experimental step seemed justified. If Craig completed his sentence the public would be protected from him for another five years, but there was a near certainty that he would leave prison an embittered and dangerous criminal.

Brigadier Clarke

rose——

Miss Bacon

I am sorry. I cannot give way. I must not be interrupted or I might not say what I wish to say.

If he were given a chance there was the distinct possibility that he might go straight, and in the long run this would be very much in the interests of the public as well as of Craig himself. The risk admittedly existed that Craig, however genuine his present intentions, might find himself unable to maintain them and might revert to crime, and full account was taken of Craig"s misconduct when previously on the hostel scheme. But on balance the risk seemed to be worth taking.

Shortly before the General Election, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hampstead, consulted the Lord Chief Justice about this proposal, and the Lord Chief Justice in turn consulted the judge from whom Craig received his latest sentence. When these consultations had been completed, the papers came before my right hon. and learned Friend with further up-to-date information about Craig"s circumstances, and he decided, after careful consideration and further inquiry, to agree to Craig living experimentally under hostel conditions and going out to work. He balanced the risks involved and came to the conclusion that the public interest would he best served by trying out this one method which seemed to hold out a good chance that this hitherto dangerous criminal would not return to crime.

Craig was accordingly put on the hostel scheme at the end of December, subject to the strict conditions which I have mentioned. I am pleased to be able to say that Craig"s employer is very satisfied with the way in which he has settled down and the excellent standard of his work. He works overtime, is punctual, reliable and efficient. Nevertheless, Craig is faced with a difficult situation and many temptations, but so far he appears to be co-operating with those who are trying to help him to overcome these difficulties. The case will be further reviewed when Craig has been at the hostel for 12 months.

I have gone into some detail about the sequence of events in the consideration of this case because of the suggestions of favouritism which have been made. I would like to make it perfectly clear that the decision in this case was taken by my right hon. and learned Friend on the basis of the very full reports before him and that he was in no way influenced by any representations made to him or any pressure put upon him from any quarter whatsoever.

I readily acknowledge that the decision in this case may have been misunderstood, not least by other prisoners who could not see how they were any less deserving of early admission to the hostel scheme. It is understandable that when different treatment is given to one man in a close community such as a prison every aspect of the case should be scrutinised. By demonstrating in the House and outside that this different treatment was justified by the exceptional circumstances of the case and was in the public interest, this debate will have served a most useful purpose.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I believe very firmly in the hostel scheme as a means of the rehabilitation of prisoners and we want to see it greatly extended. I recognise fully the interest which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has shown in this case, and I know that he has made many visits to Pentonville to interview prisoners there. I assure him and the House that we have, we believe, acted in the best interests of Craig and in the best interests of the community at large.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o"clock.