§ 3.33 p.m.
§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICHMy Lords, I agologise to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for intervening at this point, but I am now in a position to answer in more detail the Question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Brockway this morning. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in answer to a Private Notice Question in another place concerning the Price sisters, has just made the following Statement:
"As the House will be aware, the Price sisters were sentenced to life imprisonment and to concurrent sentences of 20 years' imprisonment in November, 1973, for their role in the bomb outrages at the Old Bailey and elsewhere. They have been on hunger strike in Brixton prison since December last. This action has been a matter of grave concern not only to the medical and other staff at the prison but, I believe, to Members on both sides of the House. But the view has long been taken that a prison medical officer would be neglecting the duty laid on him by Parliament if he let the health of a prisoner in his charge on hunger strike be endangered without attempting to help. Accordingly, the decision to feed a prisoner compulsorily has always been regarded as a medical matter for the judgment of the responsible doctor. It is on this basis of medical judgment that artificial feeding of the Price sisters began on December 3, 1973, and continued until Saturday, May 18. Although the procedure is commonly described as forcible feeding, it depends in practice on a certain minimal degree of co-operation from the subjects. The medical officers have decided that the degree of non-co-operation the sisters have displayed in the previous few days made it dangerous to continue with the feeding at present. The sisters remain under close medical supervision and will continue to receive all possible care and attention."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
§ 3.35 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I express appreciation for that Statement 1624 and say that I sympathise deeply with the Home Secretary in this dilemma, and also sympathise with the doctors at Brixton Prison who have this acute problem. As I indicated earlier, I have seen these two girls, and when I saw them I made clear—and the Home Office took notes of our conversation and will be able to confirm this—my deep disagreement with the methods that they had employed, though I am in favour of a united Ireland and a Socialist Ireland, which was their objective. They surprised me by how reasonable and sensitive they were. I had expected two women "toughs". They were not that in any way at all.
May I say, arising out of the Statement which has been made, that my understanding about the position of artificial feeding is that when I met the Price sisters they were not physically resisting it. That is to say, when the doctors required them to lie down to receive the food they did so. All they did in resistance was, after they had the food, to seek to vomit it. It is now reported that in the past few days they have changed their attitude, and that they have physically resisted the operation of artificial feeding. May I ask whether it is a decision of the doctors that if there is physical resistance the artificial feeding should not continue? I ask because I remember the suffragette days when artificial feeding was maintained even when there was physical resistance. The result of the action of the doctors is that these girls have had no food for six days except for the water that they are taking. I have received reports from a Catholic priest who has visited them that they are in the most dire physical condition. I should like to suggest to Her Majesty's Government in this situation that they must consider the effect if anything happens to these girls in worsening the terrible situation which already exists in Northern Ireland.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, I am sorry to intervene; I fully understand my noble friend's feelings in this matter. But I think we have an understanding here that we can make a short statement with the purpose of asking questions. I have a feeling my noble friend, because of his feelings in this matter, is perhaps now going into more of a speech than what 1625 we regard as an intervention on a Statement. If my noble friend has a further question to put to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, I should be grateful if he would do so.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I would only remark that in this House when Statements are made, statements are made by the Leaders of the Opposition Parties in reply which are not merely in the form of questions. In this House we are all equals, and a Back-Bencher has just as much right as the Leader of a Party to make a statement when a Statement is made of this character.
§ LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, surely this was an Answer to a Private Notice Question, not a Statement. I submit that it is not appropriate—I say this in support of what the Leader of the House has said—that a debate should take place in this House on what was originated in another place, and what, in another place, took the form of a Question.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the Private Notice Question originated in this House, certainly so far as I am concerned. I was aware of it at about half-past nine this morning when I made the decision that it was a matter that came within our rules. I would only say to my noble friend that it is true one can make a statement, we are very generous here; but I have a feeling that the noble Lord is taking a little too long. If he has another question I hope that he will put it, or if he wishes, he may leave it to my noble friend to reply to what he has said already. If he then has a further supplementary question perhaps he will put it.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I will not continue this argument, though I think I am right in my interpretation of it. I will ask whether the Minister is aware that I will be visiting these two girls this evening, and that I will then urge upon them to end their hunger strike because it is much more desirable that they should live for the Ireland they want than die for it. After I have seen them I shall be very glad, since I have recently been in contact with the Home Office, to discuss the matter.
§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICHMy Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said earlier, and in particular for what he has just said. May I also confirm, in answer to a question which he specifically asked, that so far as we are concerned this is entirely a medical matter for the medical staff at Brixton. While I say that, let me agree with my noble friend in his implied tribute to the medical staff at Brixton, who are only doing their best to handle this very painful and troublesome matter. I think we are all grateful to them for the work they are trying to carry out in this respect.
§ LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I apologise to the House for not being here when the question was originally asked; I am afraid I was taken by surprise. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, while we on this side of the House are of course deeply sympathetic with the embarrassment which this situation must be causing both the prison authorities and the Home Office, and indeed the medical authorities at the prison, many of us feel very strongly that this was an abominable crime for which they were sent to prison, and that they have no right, by threatening to commit suicide, to choose the place of their imprisonment?
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I say to my noble friend how pleased I am to hear that they are regarding this as a medical matter. This is the only sane way to approach it. We have had emotional speeches, such as we have just heard from the Dispatch Box opposite, but that does not help at all at this moment. What we are all concerned with, I hope, is that these girls should continue to live. I feel certain that we can leave it in the hands of the doctors who are now in charge to see that that will be so.
§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICHMy Lords, may I just say this in answer particularly to what the noble and learned Viscount said and what my noble friend has just added. I would remind the House of what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said when he wrote to my noble friend on, I think, March 20, specifically on the question of the Price sisters. He pointed out that 1627 they were being kept in Brixton, which is a man's remand prison, and he said,:
Their presence there can only be temporary. In the course of the next few months a move will, in any event, be necessary. When the time for that move comes, I am perfectly willing to consider, taking into account both compassionate and security considerations, whether it would be right to transfer them to Northern Ireland. But I am sure you will agree that such a decision should not be taken in response to demonstrations or other pressure. The weighing of compassionate and other circumstances in relation to the location of particular prisoners should not be a function of the amount of notice they attract.
§ LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, will the noble Lord convey to his noble friend that there was nothing whatever emotional in the question that I put? There is on this side a strong desire to see that the rule of law is maintained. We are very grateful for the stand which has so far been taken. Will he also accept from us that we fully recognise that this is a medical matter and should be in the hands of professional people?