§ 2.50 p.m.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why, considering his previous record of escapes and violence, Frank Samuel Mitchell was allowed to be a member of an outside working party.]
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, the House 1652 will have read the Answer which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave in another place yesterday. In view of the allegations which have since been made, the Home Secretary, in consultation with Lord Mount batten of of Burma, has arranged for the Chief Constable of Leicester, Mr. Robert Mark, to carry out an immediate investigation into the circumstances of Mitchell's escape and the events leading up to it. Mr. Mark is an assessor on the Mount batten Inquiry into Prison Security, and his findings will be dealt with in Lord Mount batten of Burma's report. Mr. Mark will arrive at Dart moor this afternoon.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and for the interesting further information. He referred to the statement by the Home Secretary yesterday. While many of us—perhaps most of us—are in favour of the type of treatment which he outlined for prisoners' as a general principle, surely this particular case of Mitchell is a quite scandalous example of an error of judgment combined with a complete disregard of the safety of the public.
§ THE EARL or LONGFORDMy Lords, I had hoped that the Answer I gave to the noble Lord would suspend any comments on his part. whether favourable or unfavourable. I am horrified that a former Home Office Minister, knowing all he knows about the way these matters are considered, should have made the extremely offensive and quite unfair remarks which he has just offered to the House.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I deny having been at all offensive. I certainly had no intention of that. As regards this inquiry, can the noble Earl say how far it will go? Will it include the question whether Home Office policy is partly responsible for these escapes?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, Home Office policy in these matters has been pretty consistent over a number of years, including the period when the noble Lord was a distinguished spokesman of the Home Office in this House and elsewhere. I do not intend to try to add to what I have already said. There will be an inquiry into the circumstances of Mitchell's escape and 1653 the events leading up to it. Policy, of course, is a matter for the Home Secretary of the day, whether the existing Home Secretary or the past Home Secretary who I am so glad to see with us this afternoon.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when I visited Dart moor in 1964 Mitchell was drawn to my attention there as a particularly difficult and sometimes dangerous prisoner, and that I for my part am surprised that a year later he was let out on a working party? Nevertheless, I entirely agree that the right course is to have this matter properly examined by Mr. Mark.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord feels that we are adopting the right course. I am rather sorry, if I may say so, that, with all his background as Home Secretary, he should have offered a premature comment without knowing the facts.