§ Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about communication between people in prison establishments and Members of Parliament.
§ Mr. William RossI am anxious that communication between prisoners and Members should be as free as possible. I also recognise the ligitimate interest that prison staff, whose associations I have consulted, have in this matter. I am now making the following changes.
First, a letter to a Member will no longer be stopped or sent back to the writer for amendment, unless it contains a complaint about the administration of an establishment or the actions of staff that has not been raised and considered through the normal internal procedure.
Secondly, a visit to a prisoner by a Member, acting in his capacity as a Member, will no longer be within hearing of prison staff, unless the Member so requests, or there are specific reasons of security, as in the case of prisoners in security Category A, of whom, in Scotland, there are very few. It is clearly desirable that Members should, on these occasions, give prisoners no encouragement to circumvent the well-established procedures for enabling complaints against prison administration and staff to be considered by the governor, the visiting committee and the Secretary of State. Whether it is a question of matters raised during visits or in correspondence, 194W it is important that the prison authorities should first have an opportunity to inquire into complaints and remedy those that are legitimate.
These arrangements are consistent with the principle underlying the Government's response, announced on 5th August, to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the ability of prisoners to engage in civil litigation.