HC Deb 12 February 1970 vol 795 cc1588-96

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

10.13 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield)

I hope that the Minister of State will understand if I refer to my constituent not by name but as Mr. X.

This man has earned a full remission from a 10-year sentence, of which seven years have been spent in Parkhurst Prison. While at Parkhurst he injured two fingers on his left hand, the index and the second finger, on a lathe in a workshop at the prison. I have seen his hand. Both fingers have stiffened, and one has given him considerable pain.

My constituent had a good character in prison. In December, 1968, he picked up a Biro pen which he noticed on the floor. Quite correctly, he handed it to a warder. Within a few minutes of the warder leaving, another prisoner attacked my constituent, knocked him down and bit off the rear portion of his left ear. I have seen the man's ear and he is literally left with just the front part of it. I understand that the prisoner who attacked him had previously attacked another prisoner. The man had to receive hospital treatment for his cheek bone. It is extraordinary that such a man should be left wandering round a prison.

The following day my constituent was seen by a police officer, in the presence of a prison officer, and a statement was taken. My constituent said that his ear had been damaged on a railing. I can quite understand why he said that. In our correspondence last October the hon. Lady said that an inquiry had been held and the facts were that it was an injury on a railing such as I have described. Had my constituent told the full facts that he had been attacked by another prisoner, and so on, one can just imagine what might have been his fate. Therefore, he trumped up an excuse and said that he had injured himself in a fall.

Four days later, in prison, he was visited by two detectives, and after some persuasion he gave the true story of this vicious attack. He was quite rightly not asked to sign the statement and I understand that the pen was handed back to the prisoner who had lost it. Nothing happened during the whole of the months that followed about giving plastic surgery to my constituent on his ear. The matter was just left. He was then moved to Strangeways Gaol, Manchester, in July of last year to serve the last three or four months of his sentence with a view to rehabilitation and he was selected for an outside working party.

I corresponded with the hon. Lady, but, unfortunately, no employment could be found for him though he was allowed home for one weekend during that period. The point I make is that no surgery was carried out on this man's ear while he was in prison. Nothing was done at all. The Minister of State, in a letter to me on 28th October last year, said: It has not been possible to arrange treatment in a prison hospital because of the pressure on surgical places. That is not good enough. On reflection, I think that there was neglect in dealing with this man's injury. It is a poor explanation for the fact that nobody has bothered.

My constituent was eventually released from Strangeways in the early part of December and was given £4 on account of national insurance benefits. When I saw him I asked, "Who saw you? What advice or help were you given?" He said the only help he had, which was very helpful, was that he received from a welfare officer at Macclesfield.

My constituent has paid the full penalty for his crime. He has now been told he must undergo two plastic surgery operations in Withington Hospital. He has attended the local employment exchange to try to get employment, but without success. I am not saying that there is a great deal of unemployment in Macclesfield, but there are very few jobs which would suit him.

What chance has this man of rehabilitating himself? He has two useless fingers, half an ear missing, and his nerves are absolutely shattered. Fortunately, this is the first case of this kind in which I have been involved. I thought that we had made progress in this direction. This is perhaps a particularly unfortunate case, but practically nothing was done for this man at all. Last week, I tried to persuade him to go to hospital to have his operation. A labour councillor from Macclesfield and myself saw the man and he said that he would think about it. The councillor has since told me that the man's nerves are so bad that he is no state to face up to what he thinks are two terrible operations. I hope that he will go to the hospital.

About three weeks ago he wrote to the Home Office and asked what compensation he was getting for the damage done to his two fingers. This matter was dealt with expeditiously. Within a matter of four days he received a cheque for £110 from the Home Office at Surbiton. Having seen the man's hand, I am a little disturbed to think that only £110 which was called an ex gratia payment should have been paid. After all, when his fingers were injured, he was working on a lathe and I would ask the right hon. Lady what sort of medical board he had. Was it comparable with what one would have in an industrial injuries benefit? Will the right hon. Lady look at the question of compensation for the man's damaged fingers?

The doctor at Manchester told him, I suppose off the record, that it was probably too late to do much good to his ear, and this rather put him off having the operation. What is the position about compensation for the disfigurement to his ear?

This man is in a desperate situation. He has a wife who has stood by him all these years and a boy, a delightful child, whom he has seen only once before. The man wants to make his way in the area in which he is living. If he has only half an ear he will probably have to move out of the town, but I hope that will not be necessary. He told me that a year ago he petitioned the Home Office to make a claim, but he has had no reply.

I am more than dissatisfied with the way in which the man was discharged from prison after seven years' confinement. He is now drawing national insurance benefit for his wife and child and has very little likelihood of employment. He has paid the penalty and he should be helped to rehabilitate himself.

I know that the right hon. Lady is sympathetic to these matters. If she cannot give me a satisfactory reply tonight, I hope that she will instigate a full inquiry into the question of compensation for the damaged fingers and ear and also try to get him employment. I shall do my best to get him a job, but I cannot be certain that I shall be successful. I hope that I may have a satisfactory answer to all those points.

10.21 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams)

I am sure that the gentleman concerned will remain anonymous on this side of the House also. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for putting his case so powerfully, and I hope I can throw light on some of the points which he has raised. This man suffered two injuries in prison, one to his fingers and the other to his ear, and I shall deal with both, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done.

The gentleman concerned was found guilty of some rather serious crimes. This explains the length of his sentence. I mention that only because it goes some way to explain the problems, which are not new, of his getting suitable employment. He was convicted in 1963 at Chester Assizes of, among other things, throwing corrosive fluid with intent, wounding with intent and being in the possession of a firearm—

Sir A. V. Harvey

I am sorry to interrupt, but we have not mentioned the man's name and if a recital is given of what happened at the beginning it will be well known in Cheshire who the man is. He has paid the price for his crime, that has gone, and I do not think it is necessary to go into every detail of what happened at Chester Assizes.

Mrs. Williams

I have no desire to identify the man. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may find some comfort in the fact that there are many hundreds of people who are dealt with at Chester Assizes, and I do not think that what I have said will identify him. I mention it only because it is germane to one point raised in the debate, which is the difficulty the man has in getting employment.

Before embarking on the story of the man's two injuries, may I say that he had certain difficulties in prison, some arising from his medical history and some from domestic difficulties which I shall not detail. I mention this only to show that this man, into whose history I have gone in considerable detail, has had a great deal of help from the prison welfare service, the prison medical service and from those devoted people mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the probation officers at Macclesfield. Very often these services in prison, and not least in a prison like Parkhurst which deals with long-term prisoners, do not get the credit which they generally deserve for the help which they give to the men who spend years in custody.

The man's two fingers were damaged in an accident on a circular saw in the Parkhurst carpentry shop in May, 1966.

The damage done was not such that it made it impossible for the prisoner to work afterwards, and the work in the carpentry shop. It was declared later by the medical board which considered the degree of disability that arose from the injury that the wound was mainly a cosmetic one, that is to say it affected the appearance of the hand more than it affected the ability of the hand to be used for normal tasks. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by telling him at once that the medical board considers compensation for an injury of this kind under one of two headings. Either an ex gratia payment is made by the Home Office for certain types of injury, or for an injury of this nature it is dealt with as being equivalent to an industrial injury. The board which considers the incapacity and compensation is identical with that set-up by the Department of Health and Social Security for dealing with industrial injury benefit cases.

I repeat that the board was identical with the type of board which would meet to consider an injury to a person in employment outside prison. It decided that there was incapacity amounting to 3 per cent. that is a minor injury. On the basis of this it made an award of £110 which the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say was paid very quickly to the man concerned. As he would appreciate, it is not for my right hon. Friend nor for me to determine the degree of disability nor the compensation payable in that case.

Sir A. V. Harvey

Would the hon. Lady describe the type of board which examined the injury? Was it in prison, and if it was would it be possible for this man to be examined by an outside board now, because I have seen these fingers and believe that the hon. Lady might be shocked if she had.

Mrs. Williams

I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the board is an outside board. It is identical with such a board, in terms of the people who serve on it, as the Department of Health and Social Security set up. The only difference is that the sum paid does not come from the normal industrial injuries benefit scheme, but is a payment from the Home Office. It is otherwise identical in all respects with an outside board. I do not think that the man would have received any different treatment elsewhere. I am certain about that.

Let me turn now to the ear. This accident occurred in Parkhurst on 10th December, 1968. The hon. Gentleman has said that his constituent was attacked by another prisoner and that the prisoner was a dangerous man who had already attacked another man and injured him. The position is that the prisoner, the man who is the subject of this debate, reported to a prison officer that he had injured his ear by slipping on an iron staircase.

He was taken to the prison hospital and unsuccessful attempts were made to find a fragment of ear which had been sliced off. Instead the ear was stitched up with 12 stitches and found to be ragged, and, as it is now, somewhat disfiguring. Following this a police inquiry was instituted, as is normal in such cases and at that stage the man concerned again reported that he had missed his footing. He said, I am using his phrases, that he had missed his step on the staircase, that he was taking them two at a time and that he had crashed the left side of his head on the metal handrail of the staircase.

It is true that at one point in the inquiry he altered his story and made an oral statement to a police officer to the effect that he had been attacked by another inmate, but when asked to make a written statement to this effect, which was important if the inquiry was to find that this was the case, he refused to do so. The position therefore is that so far as anything that we have been told officially goes, and his story is in writing, this was entirely an accident due to slipping on the staircase.

I want to make one point clear. It would still be open to the constituent of the hon. Gentleman to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which can look at a case that occurs inside prison just as it can look at a case which occurs outside. If his constituent is prepared to say now, when he is outside prison and there are presumably no reasons for him to fear retaliation, that this was the result of an assault upon him, he can make an application and it would be for the Board, which is independent of the Home Office, to consider whether compensation should be paid. The board normally considers whether a different story was told in the initial situation. It is bound to consider this, but I am assured that, having done so, it would give a sympathetic and independent hearing to this gentleman's case if he wishes to put it and change his story.

Sir A. V. Harvey

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady as far as she has gone. However, I am sure that if she looks at the whole matter objectively she will understand why my constituent was unable to give the true story in the first place. He would have been in for very rough treatment if he had done so. My information was that he was visited by two detectives and a prison officer, when he gave a statement but was not asked to sign it, and that he put a petition into the Home Office. I hope that the matter may be looked into before we follow up what the hon. Lady has suggested.

Mrs. Williams

We have looked into this is detail, and I am afraid that all the statements in writing are to the effect that it was an accident. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, because he has often been concerned with matters of this kind, that it is impossible for the Home Office or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to treat an oral statement, for which there is no backing in writing, with the same significance as a written statement made on two occasions to the effect that the injury was the result of an accident. It is open to the hon. Gentleman's constituent to make further representations of this kind, not to the Home Office, but to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

I turn finally to two other points, the first concerning the delay to which the hon. Gentleman referred in obtaining operative help for the man. It is true that there was a period between the date when the incident occurred, 10th December, 1968, and his release from prison during which application was made for him to have a plastic surgery operation. It could not have been an immediate operation. We understand from medical advice that a period of at least three months is required for the wound to heal before any grafting operation can take place, and that a graft operation is not a single operation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to two operations, but that rather depends on how they go. So it is a fairly long drawn out process.

It is true that after the ear had healed this gentleman was put down for possible operation at Wormwood Scrubs. There are two hospitals which undertake plastic surgery for the prison service, one being Wormwood Scrubs and the other Grendon. There are long waiting lists for both. Over 200 plastic surgery operations a year take place at these two prisons and normally a prisoner must take his turn. As it happened, there was a delay in the waiting list such that it was not possible to operate on him before he was released from prison, but steps were taken when he was released for him to be put on the list for Withington Hospital in Manchester. He was offered the opportunity to enter the hospital on 8th February, but for reasons which the hon. Gentleman says were very understandable—doubts about what is after all, a very difficult operation—and what we were informed was influenza he did not enter hospital then.

I finally turn to the question of his being unemployed. It is my understanding that the gentleman concerned, perhaps partly through the problems of adjustment after a long prison sentence and perhaps partly because of worries about his appearance—I do not know, has been rather reluctant to re-enter the community and has been something of a recluse. The probation service informs me that it will do everything within its power to get him a job, and there is the possibility of one or two jobs that it has in mind. It is a matter for this gentleman to decide. Only he can decide whether he wishes to seek employment now or wishes to undergo the series of operations first.

I would reassure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, first, that he is getting social security benefit; second, that he is getting a rent allowance; and, third, that consideration is being given to helping him with his hire purchase commitments. So real attempts are being made to assist this man.

I appreciate that he has particular difficulties arising from his injuries. I hope that I have been able to give some indication of ways in which he might, even now, assist himself in seeking compensation, should that be appropriate, for the injury he sustained.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.