HL Deb 09 April 1974 vol 350 cc1198-211

6.7 p.m.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how many prisoners are now in solitary confinement, or are under Rule 43, whether by their own choice or by that of the authorities; and what steps the Government have in mind for improving the situation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in raising this Question, it is a pleasure to think that I shall be followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who for many years has been a champion of prisoners, and that the reply will be given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I know well his great services to the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell and the deep mutual regard that existed between them, and there would be quite a number here who, like myself, would say that what was good enough for Hugh Gaitskell will be good enough for all of us. The noble Lord is a valuable Member of the House of Lords.

Perhaps I should read a few lines from the beginning of Rule 43 in order to give those who are coming fresh to this subject some idea of what it is all about. Rule 43 begins: Where it appears desirable, for the maintenance of good order and discipline or in his own interests, that a prisoner should not associate with other prisoners,… the governor may arrange for the prisoner's removal from association accordingly. At first sight that would sound as though Rule 43 involves solitary confinement, but as we go on we shall see that that is not necessarily so, though it may be so. The issue has been at the back of my mind and I am sure, at the back of the minds of penal reformers for some time. It has recently been highlighted by the Howard League. According to the Howard League (I think in their last but one bulletin) quoting a reply given in the House of Commons on November 9 last year, there are, or were at that time last year, 770 prisoners under Rule 43, so we are talking initially in round figures of 770 prisoners. Of these, 664, according to the answer given in the House last year, were there at their own request and 106 were there for reasons of good order and discipline—in other words, in most cases sent there presumably against their wishes. The Howard League expressed considerable disquiet, which I share, at the magnitude of these figures and it is with that in mind that I put down this Question this afternoon, not in a controversial spirit but simply to start a dialogue. If controversy is necessary later on it will undoubtedly emerge, but to-day we are engaged in a process of elucidation.

The subject is somewhat slippery and elusive—I do not mean by that that the Minister will give a slippery or evasive answer, but that it is very hard to summarise the situation briefly. The latest figures supplied to me last week by the Home Office show that the number under Rule 43 has now come down from 770 to 695, and it may be that there has been a further change in the meantime. The reduction must of course be welcome, but what is confusing—and this is why I call it a "slippery" subject—is the basis of calculation.

It appears that there are now 608 prisoners under Rule 43 for reasons of their own protection and 87 for reasons of good order and disclipline; and in the latter case they are sometimes (though not always), dealt with in this way for reasons of punishment. When I visited Wormwood Scrubs last week there were five prisoners under Rule 43 undergoing punishment and three for other forms of good order and discipline. If we take those prisoners who are under this Rule for their own protection—that is the bulk of the prisoners, the 608–124 are in Reading and Gloucester Prisons where there are large segregated wings. That leaves 484 under this Rule who are segregated for their own protection from ordinary prisoners. I shall be concentrating particularly on these 484 who are placed under Rule 43 for their own protection in ordinary prisons.

It will be noticed that I am now talking about people being there for their own protection, whereas earlier I referred to people more or less in the same category who are there at their own request. It seems to me that this is where the confusion comes in and I find it rather dismaying, because in Wormwood Scrubs and similar prisons one finds that these people are referred to as "O.R.s", or "own requests". Officially, I gather that the idea of being there for their own protection and being there at their own request is roughly, but only roughly, coincidental.

May I ask the noble Lord, when he comes to reply—and I have tried to give him a little notice of these points—to say how many of those under Rule 43 for good order and discipline (that is 87) would be undergoing punishment—that is to say, whether it would be approximately half, or more or less than half—and also what kind of general reasons would lead a prison governor to put people under the Rule for good order and discipline when they were not in fact being punished. Perhaps the Minister could say just a word on that.

He will be aware, though he has not been long at the Home Office, of one prisoner in whom I am particularly interested, who has been in solitary confinement—that is to say, what anyone would recognise as solitary confinement—for 29 out of the last 31 months. He now wishes urgently for association. I do not intend to pursue that case to-day, but I take it as an example of the serious situation that can occur. I think we shall all agree that solitary confinement enforced against the wishes of a prisoner over a long period is below any standard of humanity we seek to live up to in our prisons. However, I shall pursue that case with the relevant Minister in the Home Office. I am sorry that we have not here the Minister who is responsible under the Home Secretary for prisons; but assuming that it cannot be the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I am glad that the Minister bears the name of Dr. Summerskill. The Minister is a chip off the old block, and the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and we welcome her very much at the Home Office.

The questions I should like to put to the Minister are these. If we take the three categories—484 dealt with under Rule 43 for their own protection in ordinary prisons; 124 for their own protection in Gloucester and Reading, and 87 still under Rule 43 for the sake of good order and discipline—may we be given a rough idea of the period in each case which has been spent under the Rule? I appreciate that this is a difficult question to answer, because an average figure would probably not throw very much light on the matter. But no doubt the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the period that is spent, recognising that in some cases it may be only a few days. I should like to ask him: how many of those prisoners' would have spent, say, more than three months under Rule 43; and could the Minister tell us what is the longest period in each category spent by any one under Rule 43 who is still subject to it? Of course, I repeat that the Minister must find his own way to give us this information.

I should now like to turn to the question of segregated units—that is to say, units where people are actually associating, as in Wormwood Scrubs, for example, where there are 23 under Rule 43 at their own request who are working together in association: there is no question of their being in solitary confinement. There are a number of segregated units, even outside Gloucester and Reading. I do not know how many there are, or how many prisoners they can take, but perhaps we might be told how many of those under Rule 43 for their own protection are in some kind of association, leading to a conclusion (though the Minister may not quite accept this) that the others are not in any sort of association at all but are in actual or virtual solitary confinement.

The Minister may tell us that in fact they come out for exercise, and no doubt he will tell us how often they emerge from their cells. May we be told about these people who are not in segregated units, and given some idea of what is done to assist their reading, what educational opportunities are provided for them and what kind of work they do? Obviously, the Minister cannot go into tremendous detail, but I should appreciate it if we could be told something under those various headings.

I have taken so long in asking these questions that I must now speak rather briefly about the way ahead. Most of us will be aware of why people wish for this kind of sanctuary and why they fear to be among the ordinary run of prisoners in the prison. It is often assumed that the reason is because of the nature of their offences, particularly sexual offences against children; and I take it that the Minister will give us the picture, particularly as that is the commonest form of offence. It may be that people seeking this kind of sanctuary have in fact committed sexual offences in many cases against children.

There are other categories, of course. Recently I came across two prison officers and, under another heading in the same prison, at least one other young man who was thought to have helped the police a little too actively. It is offences of that kind, and similar ones, which help to render a person unpopular with other prisoners. I am afraid that many prisoners whose own offences might be quite appalling like to feel that someone else is worse than themselves, and although some of these unfortunate sexual offenders have perhaps more excuse for them, because often they may be driven by extraordinary urges, nevertheless they are there treated as the lowest of the low by other prisoners whose crimes may not be quite so awful.

If one is looking to the future one is bound to say a word about the Grendon Underwood psychiatric prison which is highly praised—rightly—by the Howard League in what they have been writing about this matter. Not for the first time I come before the House and implore the authorities to let us have a lot more Grendons. For some reason or other this does not happen. It took many years after the plan for having a psychiatric prison was initiated to bring it to bear. There seems to be a total block on any more.

The governor and medical superintendent of Grendon, Dr. Gray, is a wonderful man. Last week in his presence I interviewed half a dozen prisoners whose offences before they came to Grendon had caused them to seek its sanctuary. There could have been more than half a dozen, but half a dozen were selected and paraded for discussion with me. One of them admitted to me that he put himself under Rule 43 by mistake. He attacked in a violent way two prostitutes, and he found that he was being persecuted. He sought protection under Rule 43. In another prison he discovered that the man leading the attack was previously living on the immoral earnings of prostitutes and had a weakness for them. Therefore there was no need for him to seek protection for this offence.

In all the other cases the prisoners had been guilty of attacking children. Two or more were serving a life sentence; one at least killed a child. They were people who had done terrible things. They were all ready to discuss their weaknesses. I did not ask for details of their offences, but they made no secret of the kind of offence they had committed and were ready to discuss the psychology of it all and how it might be cured. In the atmosphere of Grendon you have people mixing freely in group discussions with people who committed all sorts of crimes and an atmosphere of toleration has been built up. Dr. Gray talks of raising the level of culture, and he means the culture of Grendon is a tolerant culture, whereas the culture of an ordinary prison tends to be intolerant. It can be done, and I leave the Minister to explain why Grendon is a special case in many respects. The prisoners are different in many respects and are ready to come to accept the treatment. Staff ratio is higher and on the whole they are specially qualified. One cannot say simply that one should just transfer the methods of Grendon to every prison. I regard Grendon, by prison standards, as the ideal, but inevitably we cannot achieve it all at once. I ask the Minister whether he will say something as to how the methods which have been so successful in Grendon can be disseminated in other prisons, even if they cannot be achieved so completely or very quickly.

The Howard League lays great stress on this. For example, it puts the point this way: The key question is what is being done to alter attitudes of other prisoners and encourage them to adopt a more understanding approach and to train staff. Would the Minister agree that is the aspiration? Will he also tell us whether he sees any way of moving in that direction?

Assuming that those questions are difficult, one is glad to know that fundamental research is being undertaken. I hope that we shall not be told that we have to wait for that research to be completed before anything is done. That would be a painful answer and I am sure the Minister would not wish to give it. Even assuming these problems are of great complexity, one can point to an area where one can move forward without any difficulty, given the energy and will. It seems that only a limited number of these unfortunate prisoners are catered for under Rule 43 by segregated units. I imagine a very high proportion are in solitary confinement or the equivalent. When the Minister has told us how many segregated units we have now, and what proportion of the Rule 43 people are in them, I hope he will tell us that it is the intention of the Government to move rapidly forward and have more units in the future.

My Lords, I have asked the Minister many questions and I realise that he cannot answer them all precisely; but he can give us a good idea of what is the real position at the present time, and what the Government propose to do about it.

6.25 p.m.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, as President of the Howard League for Penal Reform I am glad to have the opportunity to add a few words to what my noble friend Lord Longford has said. It seems to me that it is a grave reflection on our Prison Service that the prisons cannot guarantee the bodily safety of prisoners unless they go into solitary confinement. Since the abolition of flogging, solitary confinement is one of the more serious punishments for a breach of prison rules. It means, as I understand it, that such prisoners are in their cells for something like 23 out of every 24 hours, with an inability to work or do anything else.

It is now axiomatic—and the Home Office would agree—that we send people to prison as a punishment and not for punishment: their punishment is the deprivation of liberty and the break-up of family life. When they are in prison we do our best to reform them. If the total of prisoners we are discussing to-day were half a dozen people, one would treat them as exceptional cases. But when, so far as one can make out, there are about 484 people who are in this condition, it is a not insubstantial proportion of our prison population. It is true that there are two prisons, Reading and Gloucester, in which there are a number of these people, so that they can associate together. But the prisoners affected who are not at Reading or Gloucester number about 360. I share the view of my noble friend that it is difficult to see why what is being done at Grendon cannot be done elsewhere.

What the Howard League has said about what is being done at Grendon is this: … The experience of Grendon prison has shown that the traditional hostility against the nonce can be tackled, if the authorities are determined to do so. In Grendon the sex offender is integrated into the group régime, and both staff and prisoners come to accept that he has problems and feelings like anyone else—that he is a person rather than a scapegoat. Men who had been on Rule 43 at their previous prisons mix freely in Grendon with those who in other prisons would have terrorised them. If it can be done in Grendon, it can be done in other prisons: reliance on Rule 43 should cease to be the prison department's automatic response to a problem that can be solved by more humane methods. I also express with my noble friend the hope that the mere fact that the Home Office have set up a three-year research study into the problem will not be regarded as an excuse for doing nothing meanwhile. It is true that most of these men are either ex-policemen, informers or sex offenders. But it is not altogether limited to them. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has had an opportunity of seeing an article in this week's New Law Journal, which refers to the case of Mr. Anthony John Seaward, who had not been convicted or tried for any offence, but was on remand. His cell was at the end of a landing. Because a group of prisoners wanted to beat up another they wanted Seaward to lure the other prisoner to his cell so that they could beat him up: they thought that Seaward's cell, being at the end of the landing, would be subject to less surveillance by prison officers. When he refused to do that he himself was beaten up and made blind. One eye had to be completely removed, and the position regarding the other eye is that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that he may some day get his sight back. I do not suppose that any judge when he is sentencing a man to prison, takes into account the fact that he is sentencing him to a punishment which involves a substantial risk of being severely maimed. It is not, I should have thought, the state of things which ought to happen. If we are right in our figures, that there are nearly 500 who are in actual solitary confinement because our prisons cannot guarantee the bodily safety of those who are sent there, I hope my noble friend will agree that this is a reflection on our Prison Service and that it is time active steps were taken to remedy it, as it has been remedied at Grendon.

6.31 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH)

My Lords, first of all may I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Longford for the kind and gracious things he has said about me; and thank him, and indeed my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, for their contributions to this debate. The Government welcome this opportunity to discuss this important and extremely difficult aspect of prison treatment and to make plain the direction in which we propose to move.

May I take first the question of Rule 43 of the Prison Rules. This, as my noble friend pointed out in his speech, gives a prison governor authority, subject to certain safeguards, to remove a prisoner from association with others if it appears desirable for the maintenance of good order and discipline or if it is in the prisoner's own interest. Removal from association may be either general or for particular purposes. On April 1 last, 725 prisoners in England and Wales were subject to the Rule. These are a little higher than the figures my noble friend has quoted for March 1. But it would be wrong indeed to read too much into the monthly fluctuations that he pointed out; and in any event, this total is lower than earlier figures quoted by the Howard League. The reasons why prisoners find themselves in that situation or ask to be put in it vary greatly. For example, a prisoner may have shown himself to be a threat to others or to the proper control of the prison. Such a person would have been withdrawn from association at the choice of the authorities, to use the words in my noble friend's Question. However, it is often questionable whether the prisoner provokes such a situation in order to ensure that he is removed from association with prisoners whose company may have become an embarrassment to him. Accepting the difficulty of defining clear-cut boundaries in such situations, it is probably fair to say that out of the 725 prisoners on the Rule on April 1, 92 were people segregated at the choice of the authorities.

Equally, whether the other 633 were segregated at the prisoner's own choice or that of the authority may involve some pretty subtle distinctions. The great majority will have applied to be made subject to the Rule, although, in a few cases, it may have been done after discussions with prison staff. The reasons for seeking the protection of the Rule will vary from the familiar case of the man with offences against children—whose crimes are repugnant to other prisoners—to quite complex difficulties of relationship and personalities in a particular prison community at a particular time. This aspect of human behaviour has been subject to far too little investigation. I will return to this point later.

Turning to the conditions under which this varied section of the prison population is segregated, I think that the most helpful way I can give the House a picture of the situation is to describe in broad categories the extent to which people are withdrawn or withdraw themselves from association. First, 136 prisoners are in the special units at Reading and Gloucester. These units were set up comparatively recently to test the extent to which prisoners who, broadly speaking, seek protection, can be given the normal régime of a training prison with association at work, exercise and leisure. The units are experimental. The results so far are reasonably encouraging. However, it is only fair to say that there are critics who believe that they do not encourage the prisoner to return to the normal prison community.

Second, there is the category formed by people who are in prisons where there are enough Rule 43 prisoners to make a small community within the larger prison community and where something approaching the scale of association in the special units at Reading and Gloucester can be provided. On April 1, 353 prisoners were in conditions of that kind.

Third, there are a number of prisons with only one or two, or only a handful, of Rule 43 prisoners. There were 236 prisoners in these circumstances. In these cases the aim is to ensure that, at the least, each prisoner takes his daily exercise in association with other prisoners. Depending on numbers, facilities and availability of staff, other forms of association may be available.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, may I simply ask the noble Lord this question. I am sure that when I read those figures I will be able to add them up correctly. There are 353 who are in units, apart from Reading and Gloucester, I gather; there are 236 who are not in units. That is 589, which seems to be much more than the 484. Does that number include the prisoners who are there for order and discipline? I suppose it must. Otherwise it is too big a figure.

LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH

My Lords, I will conclude this particular argument, if I may. I hope my noble friend will follow the faultless logic which I hope lies behind it. Of these 236—we are returning to that figure at the moment—only 16 had no association with others. These people were in that situation because the prison authorities were, in each case, convinced that it was necessary to ensure the safety of the prisoners concerned, or of others. I must emphasise that in the last resort the safety of the individual is, and frankly must be, paramount. I can only assure my noble friend that these prisoners have access to books in prison libraries, and that if it is not possible for them to attend classes, prison education officers can meet their educational needs on an individual basis so far as that is practicable. For example, correspondence courses can be arranged. Work in the cell can also be provided, although it would be wrong of me to pretend that this can often be of particularly high quality. But within reason, art and handicraft work, too, can be arranged.

It is sometimes sensible to transfer a prisoner from a prison where he has no, or few, Rule 43 companions to a prison where the numbers are bigger and the opportunities for association consequently better. But sometimes the prisoner's sentence is too short to make that practicable, or his period on the Rule is likely to be brief or the balance of advantage may lie with leaving him within easy travelling distance of relatives and friends.

My noble friend has asked for a rough idea of the time prisoners spend under the Rule. I am not sure how best I can give a fair representation of the variety of cases, which as I have explained, are covered by the Rule. But on average, of those prisoners segregated for good order and discipline, approximately 80 per cent. have been so segregated for less than three months. Of the prisoners under the Rule in their own interests, and who are not in the special units at Reading and Gloucester, the comparable figure is approximately 60 per cent. The longest period a prisoner has currently spent under the Rule, and frankly this is a disturbing figure, is five years and 10 months. This prisoner is subject to the Rule at his own request. I should also like to make clear that he associates with other prisoners in the part of the prison that is given over to Rule 43 men. There are approximately 30 men in that particular unit. He works in association with them, and is able to mix freely with them at leisure times. The thing he cannot do, and does not wish to do, is to mix with the main body of prisoners. Of course, his case is reviewed regularly by the prison authorities and by the board of visitors, without whose authority, renewed monthly, he could not remain where he is. Nevertheless, because of the length of time this prisoner has been subject to the Rule, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is now personally examining this case.

To turn to the future, we certainly want to widen opportunities for association. We must, of course, take account of the availability of buildings, staff and other resources for which, as my noble friend from his own Ministerial career is well aware, there are competing claims. As I have said, we must not prejudice the safety of individuals. I should also add a note of caution here too about the future contribution the psychiatric prison at Grendon might make, or the extent to which the methods used there might be used more widely throughout the prison system. As my noble friend recognises, the arrangements there are exceptional in so far as the prison has a highly selective population, a more generous complement of staff than the average prison and—this is a crucial point—it is free of overcrowding. It has achieved a great deal already, but the therapeutic community is not by any means suited to every prisoner, and some of the less specialised régimes at other prisons with groups of Rule 43 prisoners may be more acceptable to the average man.

This brings me to plans to improve our knowledge about the complexities of Rule 43 cases and to use fresh information to achieve further improvements. As I have already pointed out, more needs to be known about the make-up of the Rule 43 population. We want to discover more about the motives of people who seek protection, and, equally important, about the attitudes of other prisoners and staff. I am glad that my noble friend has already drawn attention to this important aspect of the problem. It has now been decided, as my noble friend indicated, to institute a research programme. It will be action research in the sense that data will be used as they are collected to mount experiments. This will not be used as an opportunity for delay—a fear which I think my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner had when he spoke. There is no question at all of waiting until this research is wholly completed. It should indicate which of the options open to us are likely to be the more promising; whether, for example, we should have more than the two existing units at Gloucester and Reading, or whether there should be a greater proliferation of arrangements now made for smaller groups of prisoners at a number of prisons. Just as important, we are hoping that the research will provide information that will in time help to promote a better understanding among prison staff and, indeed, the public about the problems of Rule 43. This could, we hope, reduce the need to use the Rule. In the meantime, steps have been taken to ensure that all levels in the Prison Service are aware of the strict safeguards that have been laid down about Rule 43 cases, and to ensure that each case is reviewed regularly.

I have dealt at length with the Rule because I think that it encompasses all but a very small fraction of the situation covered by the Question. There will always be the exceptional case falling outside the Rule of the prisoner who elects to shut himself away from his fellows for one reason or another, either for a few hours or for a much longer period, and for whom the prison authorities would have difficulty in finding suitable companionship outside day-to-day contacts with prison staff, doctors and prison visitors. It is rare for such cases to be prolonged. If they are, they are well recognised and kept under close surveillance. I hope, my Lords, that what I have said to-night about the steps we are taking shows that we are as concerned as is my noble friend about the issues involved in this extremely difficult problem.