§ Mr. Roy Jenkins (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the circumstances in which a prisoner has been artificially fed for over two years.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr)The prisoner concerned is serving a term of 15 years' imprisonment for offences including robbery and possession of firearms. He is of the Jewish faith and he has been refusing meals since the end of October 1971, when he was accidentally served kosher margarine on a spatula which had been used for serving other margarine. Steps were taken to avoid a repetition of this mistake and the prisoner has been advised by visiting rabbis at two different prisons that there are no religious grounds for continued refusal of the diet available to Jewish prisoners. I am informed that this advice has been confirmed by the office of the Chief Rabbi. In spite of this the prisoner has regrettably refused to resume normal eating.
Although in the early stages the use of a tube was necessary, he has for some time been willing to accept the food from a cup with a spout.
§ Mr. JenkinsClearly this situation reveals a disturbing, difficult state of affairs of which the House and the country was unaware until it came out almost accidentally. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he was aware of the circumstances before yesterday, whether he has any plans or proposals for avoiding a continuation of this difficult state of affairs and whether he has received a report on the mental state of the prisoner?
§ Mr. CarrThe right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the critical moment of starting was before I became Home Secretary, and I have not had a chance to consult my right hon. Friend whether he knew when it started. I did not know until a relatively short time ago. I stress that that is in direct compliance with the prison rules which put the responsibility where it properly lies and can only lie—on the doctor concerned—to decide whether and when, in what 442 form and for how long, artificial feeding is necessary for the maintenance of the prisoner's health. That has always been the position, and I think that I am right in saying that no Home Secretary has ever been consulted about these matters, because they are regarded as matters for medical decision.
Of course, artificial feeding, particularly when accompanied by force, against the wish of a prisoner, is horrible and terrible. It is resorted to only as a last resort and as an alternative to endangering the life of the prisoner—an alternative we have never regarded as being acceptable in this country.
§ Mr. StallardThe Home Secretary said that force feeding is used only as a last resort. Is he aware that the revelation that this man has been artificially fed for over two and a half years has shocked thousands of people in this country who are concerned about prisoners' conditions? Does he agree that this justifies a completely independent inquiry to look into the whole question of artificial and force feeding with a view to discussing alternatives and abolishing this barbaric process?
Secondly, will he reconsider——
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Will the hon. Gentleman please be seated when I am on my feet? I must ask him to make his points as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. StallardThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will be as quick as I possibly can.
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman must know that this revelation came to light as a result of a Question that I put down about hunger strikers and force feeding generally, may I ask him to reconsider his decision not to allow the transfer of prisoners from this country to Northern Ireland, as he has allowed the transfer of 20 prisoners from Northern Ireland to this country? Will he also explain why two women have to be force fed in a male prison in this country when there is a prison in Armagh adequately staffed and secure enough to meet the requirements of female prisoners?
§ Mr. CarrThe second part of the hon. Member's question is not strictly relevant to a Private Notice Question about a specific prisoner who is not one of the prisoners to whom he refers.
443 The first point is relevant to this case and all cases of this kind. There is no desire or intent to keep this sort of thing secret. Anybody is informed about these matters on inquiry. In this case, for example, I believe, although I am not absolutely sure, that it has been known to the prisoner's own Member of Parliament. I am not certain about that, as I say, but it has certainly been known to the office of the Chief Rabbi. Our whole object has been to try to create the conditions in which this prisoner would resume normal feeding. That has been our object all along. I stress to the House that we have had the support of visiting rabbis to the prisons in which he has been and of the office of the Chief Rabbi in confirming that on religious grounds the food on offer was wholly acceptable.
Unfortunately, although there are other Jewish prisoners in the same prison willingly accepting the food available to them, it has not been possible to persuade the prisoner in question that on religious grounds he can accept normal food. This is regrettable, but I do not see what more we could have done in the circumstances.
§ Mr. FidlerIs my right hon. Friend aware that the case is known and has been known to members of the visitation board of the Jewish community, who have known about it for quite a long time, that they have visited the prisoner over a period and have advised him to take the food which is offered? In order to clarify the matter in this House, will the Home Secretary confirm that the prisoner accepted non-kosher food in two prisons without demur until he came to his present prison, which casts some doubt on the reasons about accepting the food?
§ Mr. CarrAs to my hon. Friend's last point, it is not part of my business to cast doubt upon the prisoner's motives. However, I thank my hon. Friend for confirming what I said—namely, that there has been no intent to keep this issue secret. We have enlisted the co-operation of all the people that we can whom we think may help the man overcome his scruples.
§ Mr. BeithWill the Home Secretary take note that the general feeling of repugnance about force feeding by using a tube in the early part of this case and 444 other cases is such that it tends to encourage public sympathy for people who, in some instances, are not very deserving of it? In the light of this, would he consider abandoning force feeding by tube when there is no alternative method available?
§ Mr. CarrI prefer to put it the other way and to confirm that force feeding by tube is absolutely the last resort. It is only resorted to when in the opinion of doctors there is no practicable alternative. In case there is any misunderstanding from my original reply, I should like to make it clear that force feeding by tube has not been going on for 800 days in this case. It was for the first couple of months only that the tube method had to be used, but certainly for some months now the prisoner concerned has been taking food from a cup.
§ Sir John HallWould not my hon. Friend agree that those who are opposed to the force feeding of prisoners under the circumstances which my right hon. Friend has described are saying that they would sooner see a prisoner die?
§ Mr. CarrThat is, of course, the dilemma. It has always been this country's policy under successive Governments for as long as I know to say that the alternative of death is not acceptable. Indeed, the prison rules approved by Parliament lay upon the prison doctor the duty to care for the health of the patient.
§ Mr. Thomas CoxIs the Home Secretary aware of the intolerable position in which prison governors and officers are placed when force feeding has to be done? With regard to the man in question, I understand that a certain amount of willingness on his part to accept force feeding had been expressed. Would he, however, look again at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)? If he does not, will not this kind of incident continue to be a great problem for his Department concerning all the other prisoners now on hunger strike and not co-operating with the authorities?
§ Mr. CarrThe matter is about to be brought before the courts, so it behoves me to be careful in what I say, but I must repeat to the House that it has been the view of the House for many years, under successive Governments, that 445 in this country it was not acceptable to let a prisoner die if his death could be prevented. In the last resort the only alternative to that is this very nearly intolerable method of keeping them alive. But we have always taken the view in this country that this very nearly intolerable method is a little less intolerable than allowing death.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)Order. I am afraid that we must pass on to the next business. Mr. Leonard.