§ Mrs. FyfeI beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 19, line 13, at end add—
'(4) In determining which prison a prisoner should be allocated to, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the prisoner's home circumstances and access to the prison by the prisoner's family.'.The Minister will remember our discussion in Committee. I thank him for the detailed response which he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in the past few days. He kindly let us all have a copy of that reply.In his reply he stated that he had already introduced a scheme for long-term prisoners which became operative last July. It means that
prisoners serving sentences of more than 2 years are given the opportunity to choose, subject to the availability of places, among a number of establishments offering appropriate levels of security.He also said that there were opportunities for prisoners who are not considered dangerous to be considered for home leave. However, he has so far rejected legislation to enforce what our amendment calls for.He set out his reasons in his letter. He said that the current distribution of establishments and
the need to hold remands, males, young offenders and females separately means that it is … not a practical proposition to meet a requirement of nearness to family".I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we are asking only that he "shall have regard" to the prisoner's home circumstances and access to his family. We are far from suggesting that that is the only criterion worth considering. We agree with the Minister that a move to medium-security or open conditions may be of great benefit to the prisoner, and that it may be the right time for a prisoner to move to a less secure establishment. That might have the effect of taking the prisoner further away from his family.However, we also suggest that in many cases, prisoners might benefit more from a move to a more open prison if in the first place they had the encouragement and support that a family could give through being close to the prison. We recognise that the distribution of prisons is not so convenient that there could be one available in half an hour's bus ride from anywhere in Scotland, but we suggest that, given the current placing of prisons, account should be taken of that difficulty.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that, if people in prison, whether male or female, have access to those near and dear to them, whoever they may be, that can only help them to get back into society, to give up the crimes for which they have been imprisoned in the first place and to restore them to decent society. Having family back-up maintained throughout long imprisonment must surely be valuable.
We agree with the Minister that the family are not necessarily those with immediate marital or blood 486 relations. The problem of definition can easily be resolved. What is wrong with asking the prisoner himself or herself to name the people with whom he or she feels there is a close relationship? The list must not, of course, be over-extensive.
§ Mr. HoodMy hon. Friend makes a valuable point and I am sure that all hon. Members here understand it. This weekend I was concerned with the case of George Beatty. Although innocent, he was convicted, served a prison sentence of 13 years and is now back inside. He obviously does not have a wife. He has only a mother who lives on a state pension. The Department of Social Security is refusing assistance to allow her to visit her son, who is in prison after having been wrongly convicted. Surely that supports what my hon. Friend says.
§ Mrs. FyfeI agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that many people are in prison whose home circumstances are very impoverished. Their families have little money and cannot afford long journeys to visit them. Pensioners and people living on income support are especially badly placed in that regard. That is one of the reasons why we are appealing for legislation to ensure that such circumstances are taken into account.
The actions of the Department of Social Security are not, of course, the Minister's business, but we should take account of the realities in framing legislation. It is not only the length of the journey that is a problem, but the cost of the journey can put it beyond the pockets of so many families. Whether the person involved is the prisoner's mother, wife, partner or simply close friend is irrelevant. The important point is that the person who visits is someone to whom the prisoner feels close and someone from whose close contact he or she would benefit.
We called earlier for severer sentences in some circumstances, but we should never forget that a long term in prison is a drastic thing to happen to anybody. We want to try to get people to join the community again and to give up whatever crimes have put them in prison in the first place. Keeping in contact with those whom they hold near and dear will surely only help.
§ Mr. GallieI want to rectify a great wrong. In Committee, I was the only hon. Member to speak out against the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill. At that time, the Minister appeared sympathetic to it and I was critical of him for being so. I was critical because I felt that it was unnecessary to add a factor that was already considered by the authorities when a person was convicted. It is part of the process, and a sympathetic approach is taken.
I felt at that time that to legislate would mean that there was a mandatory requirement which could cause problems, because prisoners could see such a requirement as a right and would look to it as a principal justification for going to a particular location. The real reason why individuals are in prison is the protection of the public. That must be the overriding factor.
The question of the prison to which a convicted person goes could be considered, but it should not be legislated for and it should not be a mandatory requirement. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has gone back on his original comments in Committee, and I hope that he sticks to his present view.
§ Dr. GodmanI part company with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to some extent. When people are in prison, an immense burden is often placed on the shoulders of their families in terms of travel to and from prison for visits.
§ Mr. Gallieindicated dissent.
§ Dr. GodmanThe hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Anyone visiting Shotts prison has considerable difficulty getting to it from the centre of Shotts. If the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, he should at least offer some solace to the families of prisoners in those circumstances. I fully accept that there are often practical difficulties that prevent the transfer of a prisoner to a prison close to his or her home.
Some time ago, I wrote to the Minister asking for a constituent, who is serving 12 years in Perth, to be transferred to Greenock. His mother, an elderly, disabled person who is living on social security, told me that she simply could not travel to and from Perth. I do not want to identify more closely where she lives in my constituency. I asked the Minister whether he would consider such a transfer on compassionate grounds, although not for the man in question, who deserves every day of the sentence imposed on him for the crime that he committed.
However, it seems that there are establishments closer to my constituency than the one in Perth. I accept that there are difficulties about Greenock because it is a prison designated for short-term prisoners, although there are two or three prisoners there who are serving immensely long sentences.
The Minister could take measures that would make life easier for the families of prisoners rather than for the prisoners themselves. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) stressed the need to take account of the prisoners' concerns.
Not so long ago, a constituent of mine came to see me with a request that her son be transferred closer to the lower Clyde. Unwittingly, I simply accepted that that was also her son's wish. I then received an indignant letter from the laddie concerned saying that he did not want to move to Greenock, not because of its Member of Parliament, but because he wanted to keep away from his family. I had a rather difficult interview with his mother afterwards. The interests of the prisoner must have primacy. The Minister can improve matters. I have asked a number of times for the creation of a visitors' committee at Greenock. I know that I am straying out of line, and I shall not expand the point further. However, in terms of controlling the inevitable tensions and turbulences in our prisons, the Government must show some concern for the issues arising directly from the amendment.
§ Mr. GallieThe hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was trying to make. The system already allows people such as him to write or make representations to the Minister on behalf of a prisoner. The system tends to treat applicants sympathetically and, where possible, meet their demands. I am sugesting that that is already happening and should not be a mandatory requirement.
§ Dr. GodmanI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically courteous intervention. I have, 488 perhaps, more experience of such matters than some hon. Members, as it appears that a depressingly large number of my constituents are at present incarcerated in prison.
§ Mr. GallieIt might affect the hon. Gentleman's majority.
§ Dr. GodmanThere are not enough of them to affect my majority at the next election. If they were all released tomorrow and there was an election a month later—for which I devoutly pray—it would not affect my not insubstantial majority.
It is a serious matter, particularly for elderly women who exist on social security, and who find it enormously difficult to travel to, for example, that appallingly grim place at Peterhead—all prisons are grim, but that must be the grimmest of the lot in Scotland—or to Saughton in Edinburgh. They have to suffer the indignity of appealing for funds from the local benefits agency, as we are now supposed to call it. I believe that, in many cases, the families of prisoners would benefit enormously if the prisoners were not held so far from home.
I think that Greenock prison is for short-term prisoners —those serving up to and including 18 months. There are a handful of long-term prisoners in the establishment whom I have met—as a visitor I hasten to add. I spent an afternoon there, although I know that the hon. Member for Ayr would like me to have stayed longer.
It is an important amendment, and even if the Minister cannot see fit to accept it because of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Ayr, I hope that when requests are made for transfers, they are treated sympathetically and expeditiously. That is not always the case now.
Not everyone will visit their Member of Parliament asking for a request to be passed on to the relevant Minister for a daughter or son be placed in an establishment closer to home. Some people will be much too diffident to come to our surgeries with such requests. For a start, they will feel it shameful to have a son or daughter in prison.
I want the Minister to treat the subject with great sympathy, and not merely in relation to transfers within Scotland. Those of us with constituents in prisons south of the border—in my case just a handful—would like sympathetic consideration to be given to bringing those prisoners home. By "home" I mean prisons in Scotland that are not as far away from their homes.
There is much to be done to improve visitor facilities in prisons. The state of affairs at Greenock prison is nothing short of a scandal, but I am not certain that it is much better at Shotts, Edinburgh, Perth or elsewhere. Much needs to be done for the families of prisoners.
§ Mr. McFallI have been provoked into speaking by the comments of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), although he does not normally provoke me to do so. If I thought for a minute that the Minister was agreeing with the sentiments originally expressed by the hon. Member for Ayr, I would force a Division. However, I was gratified to read in his letter to me of 14 December 1992 that he took our concerns seriously. I am delighted to note that he has had discussions with the chief executive of the prison service on the matter.
The issue of prisoners and their families is extremely important. If we wish to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and reintroduce them into society, we must 489 consider their family context. In many cases, women will be left on their own to bring up children, and support and encourage their husbands in prison. If we wish to reduce the prison population it is extremely important that we consider the position of the families. Therefore, I am glad that the Minister has recognised our considerations and stated that the spirit of his letter will be maintained. That being the case, I see no reason for us to press the amendment to a Division.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI shall reply only briefly as I have already written to hon. Members. We had full discussions on the matter and wanted, if we could, to provide the House with a suitable amendment. We concluded that it would be impractical for several reasons. Cornton Vale is the only women's prison and could not meet the requirement were it to be written into statute. There is a protection unit at Peterhead for prisoners who are liable to be attacked by other prisoners so they could not take advantage of the terms proposed. Similarly, those who are to be held in open conditions can go to Penninghame or Noranside, and we would not want to deprive them of that opportunity.
Prisoners serving more than two years are now entitled to choose from among a range of long-term establishment subject only to the availability of place. The Scottish prison service is working to improve visiting facilities where possible and is also reviewing arrangements for home leave to see whether more prisoners can benefit from home leave without compromising public safety. Those actions are being taken, and will continue to be taken. The proximity of prisoners' families will be taken into account. Where there is overcrowding in prisons, we felt that it would be undesirable to present prisoners with what might have been a right of judicial review, when it would be impractical always to give effect to it. However, as a matter of good practice, the prison service will certainly try to implement the facilities where possible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.