§ 9. Mr Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to change the Prison Rules.
§ 17. Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the civil rights of those serving sentences of imprisonment.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsAs I explained in reply to a Question on 19th June by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright)—[Vol. 893, 1703 c. 1645–7]—I am reviewing certain aspects of the treatment of prisoners and restrictions on their communication with non-prisoners. I shall announce the result of these reviews when they are completed.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkIs my right hon. Friend aware that we are grateful for that answer, but will he not consider making provision for prisoners to be legally represented in a court when they are charged with an in-prison offence which carries with it a loss of remission? Docs he not accept that the loss of liberty, on some occasions for several months, should be determined by a judicial authority and not by a prison authority?
§ Mr. JenkinsI do not think I can accept that. To introduce a judicial procedure into any in-prison punishment, which is what my hon. Friend's suggestion might mean, would be very cumbersome. I shall consider any question he puts to me, but in view of the position in the courts, which in many ways are already jammed up, to remove from any non-judicial procedure the award of any punishment within prisons would be an extremely difficult thing to do.
§ Mr. Douglas-MannA person suffering from a legitimate sense of grievance is more likely to become a permanent enemy of society than one who is justly treated. Is it not therefore desirable that the system of allocating prisoners to control units, which are a complete outrage of the principles of natural justice, should be abandoned and that the decision of the Court of Human Rights with regard to the communication by prisoners with their MPs and lawyers should be implemented? Does my right hon. Friend consider that the events disclosed and admitted at the Birmingham bomb trial would have come to light if the prisoners concerned had not been awaiting trial, but had been convicted prisoners denied access to lawyers?
§ Mr. JenkinsThe last point is as sub judice as anything can be at the present time, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. As for allocation to control units, there is a later Question about this matter which I think will be reached, and perhaps the House would be prepared to wait until we reach it.
1704 I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the general proposition that it is desirable to treat prisoners justly. We shall give effect to the Golder judgment, but there are certain situations which have to be reviewed, and I hope to announce the conclusions of the review before the recess.
§ Mr. NelsonWill the right hon. Gentleman consider including in the things which the review body will examine the basic right of people in prison to write to their Member of Parliament unfettered by the powers of censorship which exist under the Prison Rules?
§ Mr. JenkinsAs I said in a reply about a month ago, I am anxious to reduce the powers of censorship. However, the only valid reason for the power of censorship of letters to Members of Parliament is that on the whole it is important that prisoners should go through the proper procedure of making complaints internally before they write outside. Although I am sure that he has great experience of these matters, I do not think that the hon. Member would find it possible to operate a prison system otherwise.
§ Mr. MikardoFurther to the point raised by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is right that a letter from a prisoner to his lawyers should be free of censorship only after the prisoner has decided to enter into litigation? Does he not agree that the correspondence which passes between a prisoner and his lawyer in deciding whether there should be litigation is often more sensitive than that that which passes after the decision? Ought not the prisoner to have the right of free consultation with his lawyers to decide whether or not he wants to enter into litigation?
§ Mr. JenkinsIt appeared to me, as listened to the question my hon. Friend was posing, that an important issue might be involved here, and I shall happily consider, and am considering as part of the review, the point he has raised. It would be possible for a prisoner to use communication with his lawyers to get round a number of the Prison Rules in a way which would not be desirable, but I see some force on the immediate point 1705 that my hon. Friend has put to me and I shall discuss it.