§ 13. Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the use of control units involving solitary confinement for a minimum of 90 days at Wakefield and Wormwood Scrubbs prisons.
§ 17. Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the introduction of special control units at Wakefield and other prisons, and the methods of allocation of prisoners to such units.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsI would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on 14th November.—[Vol. 881, c. 195–6.]
§ Mr. CryerI appreciate that there have been recent changes, but will my right hon. Friend assure us that there has been no breach of Section 51 of the 1964 Prison Regulations, which limits solitary confinement to 56 days? Does he accept that imprisonment, in addition to punishment, involves the principle of rehabilitation, and accept that solitary confinement and the wrecking of a man mentally will not assist in his rehabilitation into society after leaving prison? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give consideration to ending this barbaric practice of solitary confinement for 90 days and abolishing the two control units?
§ Mr. JenkinsCertainly if I thought that there was any question of a breach of prison rules I would not condone that. I do not think that confinement is fully solitary, for the reasons I have given. I am placing a statement in the Library—it may be there already—showing the exact position, and we can discuss it further.
1511 As the House will be aware, I have introduced two safeguards. I ask the House also to consider that there is a real problem here—a problem not of punishing individual prisoners but of dealing with a position in which one or more prisoners may seek to disrupt the whole life of prison in a way which makes it impossible for the staff to conduct business and impossible for other prisoners to live under a tolerable régime. This is a real problem, which causes me much concern, and I shall continue to keep it under review.
I believe that in the changes I have announced I have met the major and legitimate doubts. There was never any question of secrecy. What was being done has always been announced clearly, both by my predecessor and myself.
§ Mr. Norman FowlerDoes the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has a great deal of support on this side of the House and that the setting up of the two units followed serious disturbances in our prisons? Does he agree that prison officers who already work under very difficult conditions also have some rights in this matter?
§ Mr. JenkinsYes, I do. I said that before the hon. Gentleman said it. I am glad to welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I recognise the rights of prison officers. I also recognise that there is the important job of considering the conditions which prevail in our prisons.
I am certainly anxious that these measures should be used with the utmost restraint. It is the case that only three prisoners have been transferred. I have introduced the two safeguarding measures.
§ Mr. Douglas-MannDoes my right hon. Friend agree that even taking account of the problems of these control units, the principles of natural justice should apply even to prisoners? Does he further agree that, given the scale and extent of punishment involved in the allocation of control units, a decision by a board of visitors to allocate a prisoner to such a unit should involve the ordinary procedures of natural justice, namely, the right of representation for the prisoner before the board and the right to challenge evidence on which it is proposed that he should be allocated?
§ Mr. JenkinsI do not think that it would be possible to deal with questions of allocation on a basis that would amount almost to a court of law. This has never been the case. I assure my hon. Friend that to do that would make the administration of the prison service almost impossible. I have, however, made it clear that there has to be a positive recommendation from the board of visitors. It would not necessarily follow that if there were such a recommendation a prisoner would be so transferred. Our procedures are likely to be more restricted than those applied by the board of visitors, but they could be overridden only by a personal and publicly announced decision on my part, or on the part of the Home Secretary of the day—a power that would be used with the utmost limitation.
§ Mr. BeithDoes the Home Secretary agree that many of us understand the need for some form of special control provision in the absence of a concentration policy in which difficult prisoners are being dispersed? Does he accept that such a substantial departure in policy calls for fuller discussion in the House than is permitted by merely presenting it in the form of a statement in the Library?
§ Mr. JenkinsI have already answered a Question—admittedly by way of a Written Answer—on this matter, and we have now had several exchanges again. If the House wishes to discuss the matter further by way of an Adjournment motion or by other appropriate procedure, that would seem to be a sensible method of proceeding, and we would welcome an opportunity of further discussion of this admittedly difficult matter.
§ Mr. AbseIs my right hon. Friend aware that despite the mention he made about the lack of secrecy, it does not inspire any confidence in this claim to read, in last week's report on the work of the Prison Department for 1973, of an attempt being made to ward off the charge of secrecy? It was not implicit in the original statement of the former Home Secretary that the men would stay months, and not weeks.
Can my right hon. Friend explain why the recommendations of the Radzinowicz Report, which went so carefully into the whole question of segregation units and enabled those of us who were members 1513 to see segregation units in Europe and the United States, appear to have been completely put on one side? Segregation units, which can be barbaric in some circumstances, although valuable in others, depend upon the characteristics and safeguards of the régimes that are categorised. Will my right hon. Friend note that the new safeguards he has proposed still do not meet those proposed in the Radzinowicz Report?
We appreciate that there is a need for surveillance in these matters, but will my right hon. Friend understand that it is very easy for lower grade prison staff to thwart and frustrate the most liberalising hierarchy?
§ Mr. JenkinsI know of my hon. Friend's great knowledge and interest in these matters, but he will accept that it is impossible for me to answer his points other than in a speech. I cannot deal with the points in answer to a Question, but I take note of what my hon. Friend says. Segregation units and control units are not the same thing, but what my hon. Friend says underlines the fact that a short debate on some occasion when these matters could be further explored would be a useful means of dealing with the subject.
§ Mr. CarlisleDoes the Home Secretary not agree that not only are these control units a necessary means of dealing with the small group of prisoners who are determined persistently to ferment trouble but that they are a far better solution than the possible alternative of the fortress-type prison once recommended? If I may put one critical question in respect of the units, does the right hon. Gentleman think, on reflection, that he ought to consider the minimum length of time people are kept there and ask whether 90 days is somewhat too long?
§ Mr. JenkinsAs I am sure the hon. and learned Member will be aware, that is precisely one of the two points to which I addressed myself in the statement on 14th November. The first point dealt with the introduction of the new element of the board of visitors and the second was that 90 days plus 90 days in slightly less restricted circumstances should not be mandatory, but that the position of the prisoner should be reviewed from time to time. I also said that in the event of 1514 some misdemeanour there should be no automatic recession to the beginning of the period without a consideration of the question whether it was serious enough to justify such action. I have introduced an element of flexibility for which the hon. and learned Member asks.