§ Mr. Prescottasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the way in which the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service will take evidence from prisoners during his inquiry into the disturbances at Hull Prison.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesYes. As I explained in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) on 21st October, the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service will, in the first instance, receive written statements and it will be for him to decide in each case whether, and how, to seek amplification of a statement. Statements from prisoners will only be invited by the Chief Inspector: there can be no question of his compelling them.
The Chief Inspector has decided, with my full agreement, that it would be wrong for him to invite statements from 659W prisoners who are facing disciplinary proceedings in connection with the disturbance. On the other hand, it is his intention to invite statements from prisoners who are not being charged with disciplinary offences and from others when disciplinary proceedings have been completed. As soon as the final disciplinary proceedings have been completed—and these proceedings are being put in train with all speed—every prisoner who was in Hull Prison at the time of the disturbance will have an opportunity to make a statement to the Chief Inspector.
Statements by prisoners will be transmitted direct to the Chief Inspector without scrutiny by the prison authorities.
In inviting statements from prisoners the Chief Inspector will make it clear that, subject to one proviso, nothing in such a statement will be used in evidence in any proceedings against the person making it. The proviso relates to false and malicious allegations against a prison officer. The making of such an allegation is a disciplinary offence under Rule 47(12) of the Prison Rules, and I do not consider that it would be right for the Chief Inspector to offer prisoners an indemnity against disciplinary proceedings if a statement to him appears to be in breach of this rule.