I beg to draw the attention of the Committee to a case, about which I put a Question to the Home Secretary on 22nd June. It is the case of Thomas Parker, aged 34, who died in Winson Green Prison on 2nd June. In the first place, may I say how much I appreciate the sympathetic tone of the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to my question? I believe that the Home Office is as anxious to prevent cruelty and injustice as anybody in this House, and I therefore feel confident that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will listen with sympathy to the story which I have to tell. May I say a few words on the life of Thomas Parker? When the War came to an end he was very young, but he had served in it as a soldier. So anxious was he to serve his country that he enlisted when under age in the Notts and Derby Regiment. He was discharged owing to his extreme youth. He made another attempt a little later, and this time was successful. He joined the Northumberland Fusiliers, he was sent to Ireland, and he then went to France, where he served during the remainder of the war. When the war ended he was 19 years old. He then re-enlisted, in the Grenadier Guards, and served there for three years. At the age of 22 he left the Army and found himself, like so many hundreds of thousands more, jobless and untrained, having spent in the Army and at the war those years in which he would normally have learned a trade or profession. He became a casual labourer and worked for a while as a miner, and then as a navvy. Until he served this sentence, that ended in his death, he had never been in prison.

In May of this year Parker was destitute. He had been in the workhouse and was tramping to Tamworth in search of work. He had no money. On the way to Tamworth, night came on, and he went to sleep by the side of the Coventry road. For the sake of shelter and warmth, he crept under a steam roller. Now in this country that is a crime. The police arrested him. I have often slept in the open, but I have never been arrested, simply because I did not happen to be poor and destitute. This man's crime was his extreme poverty. I say to myself, "This man Parker was an ex-soldier, just as I am. He may have been a better soldier than I was, for all I know. In any case, he volunteered to go to the war, whereas I was sent. He did his duty, he was honest, and but for the mercy of God, it is Lewis Spears, not Thomas Parker, who might have been standing in that dock." He was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. Now I know that that sentence has nothing whatever to do with the Home Secretary, though I think it affects this House, and I should not be in Order if I discussed this sentence, but what subsequently occurred undoubtedly hangs upon the imposition of that monstrous sentence. This man, guilty only of being poor, was sent to prison by two magistrates of the Coles-hill Bench, one a man of about 70, the other a man of about 60.

The hon. and gallant Member will realise that he cannot discuss the matter of the magistrates' conduct on this occasion.

I bow to your Ruling, but I am very sorry indeed that I am debarred from saying exactly what I think about these men. At any rate, I can say that I am very glad I am not in their place. The evidence given at the inquest proves that Parker felt that he had been terribly unjustly treated. Nevertheless, he went to prison quietly. He gave no trouble, but the warder on duty noticed that he would not keep his cell door closed, although he was repeatedly told to do so. During the second night of his imprisonment he was disturbed and agitated. He kept shouting that he was innocent, that he had committed no crime, and that he must get out of gaol, even if it was in a coffin. The warder on duty seems to have been a sensible and humane man. He did his best to quieten Parker, and explained to him that if he had a grievance, he could lay it before the Governor in the morning. At exercise next morning Parker fell out. He said he was done, and from then onwards the evidence shows that he behaved like a man in a frenzy. His exasperated sense of injustice, coupled with the effect of confinement on a man who, as I will show in a moment or two, was certainly suffering from some form of claustrophobia, had upset his mental balance.

Parker was brought before the Acting Governor and sentenced to three days' solitary confinement on bread and water. If I am debarred from expressing an opinion concerning the magistrates, who certainly are chiefly responsible, the same does not apply to the prison officials. First, let me deal with the prison doctor, Dr. Humphrey. In his evidence Dr. Humphrey said that he noticed in the warder's report that he had had to close Parker's door on certain occasions and that Parker seems to have had some reluctance to having his door closed. This is a transcript from shorthand notes taken at the time, which I have obtained from a newspaper:

"The Coroner: Does anything arise to your mind from your knowledge of the feelings of certain people who may be confined?

The Doctor: Yes; confinement in a small place may upset the mental equilibrium of some people.

The Coroner: Certain types of people feel they must get out of a small confined place?

The Doctor: Yes. It is called claustrophobia, and it is a well-recognised condition.

The Coroner: Great distress might be caused by being so enclosed, and it would be reasonable for frenzied attempts to be made to get away?

The Doctor: Yes.

The Coroner: This man might have had some degree of this condition?

The Doctor: Yes.

The Coroner: And are the feelings aggravated by being alone and silent?

The Doctor: They are."

It is that doctor who gave a certificate that that man was a fit man and in a fit condition to undergo solitary confinement, and may I draw attention to the fact that that evidence of the doctor is in flat contradiction to the answer which the Under-Secretary of State gave me the other day? I know, of course, that there was no intention whatever of misleading the House, but I am sure my hon. Friend will investigate this.

May I remind him of what he said then?

"In regard to whether the man was suffering from claustrophobia, the medical officer of the prison, who knows of this complaint and is very familiar with it, decided that he was not suffering from that complaint."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1933; col. 936, Vol. 279.]

I leave that at that. In order to make matters doubly sure, I also consulted a great London alienist, and laid the evidence that I had before him. He said that there was a strong probability that this man was suffering from some form of claustrophobia. We next come to the Acting-Governor, Chief Officer Vause. He also is a public servant, and he is paid to do his work humanely and efficiently. A juror who was present at the inquest felt so strongly about this case that he came down from the Midlands to see me about it. He gave it as his opinion that Chief Officer Vause was a very hard, unsympathetic and unintelligent man, who gave his evidence very badly. However, armed with the doctor's certificate, Vause condemned Parker to three days' solitary confinement. In his evidence, Vause stated that it was Parker's behaviour when brought up before him in the adjudication room, and not because of the complaints that had been made concerning him, that led him to punish Parker in the way he did. In other words, he punished Parker for having been reduced to a state of frenzy. Vause was no doubt applying the regulations' and carrying out his orders as a non-commissioned officer would do, inexorably and mechanically. Some men would have taken into consideration the fact that this man's crime was only that of not having a roof above his head. He would have investigated what the mental condition of this man was, and would have taken all those factors into consideration.

I am very nearly at the end of my story. Parker seems to have known in a curious way that his end was near, because, although he had been completely incoherent and shown every sign of frenzy when he appeared before the Acting-Governor, he suddenly pulled himself together, and said very solemnly as he held up his hand, "This is my death card. How are my relatives to know that I am dead?" He was taken struggling from the adjudication room by two warders. During the short journey from the adjudication room to the silent cell, (he was so injured that within a quarter of an hour or so he was dead. The curious thing about the evidence is that no one saw this man fall. What seems to have occurred was that the two gaolers walked on either side of him. They seem to have released his arms for a moment, and at that second Parker took a flying jump forward down a flight of stone steps. He landed at the foot of the steps in a sort of spread-eagle fashion and then struggled up to his knees. But no one saw him actually fall, and that is a curious fact. There were two warders, one on either side of him, and there were other prison officers in the corridor, but not a man saw him fall, not a man saw a blow dealt, and yet, in the space of these few seconds he received a terrible injury on the back of the head behind the ear from which he died in a very few minutes.

Parker at the foot of the steps struggled to his knees. In a second, the warders were upon him; one held him by one arm and another by another arm, while a third grabbed him by the collar. They pulled him so into the punishment cell. It could not have been a very difficult task, for his strength was giving out, besides which this six-foot man weighed only 10 stone. The next time he was looked at, when somebody looked through the peep-hole, they saw him lying in a heap. He was dead. So that there, on the floor of the prison cell, ended the life of Thomas Parker, ex-Guardsman, at the age of 34, whose crime was that from poverty he had slept on the King's highway. He came to a cruel and brutal end because he had lain down to rest on the soil of the land he had risked his life to defend. I beg my hon. Friend to consider whether the story I have told him will not lead him to the conclusion that the administration of Winson Green Prison requires looking into. Above all, does he not think that the Vagrancy Act, 1824, introduced before we had the police, requires repealing? I put a question yesterday asking the numbers of people who were convicted under that Act, and although I was glad to hear that the numbers were diminish- ing, but I found that 271 persons were sent to prison last year for lodging in barns and sleeping in the open, and that out of that number 18 were sent to prison for three months for that offence. I think, too, that something ought to be done to enable us to remove magistrates who inflict harsh and cruel sentences. Most of them are kind, I am sure most of them are wise, but not all are.

Since I put a question on this subject the other day, I have received a certain number of communications concerning similar cases, and I would like to draw attention to one sent me from Torquay. The case was reported in the "Torquay Times" of 23rd instant. A police constable heard snores about midnight. On investigation, he found they proceeded from an elderly man asleep on some steps. He arrested him, and the man was charged. He explained to the magistrates that he was suffering from rupture and from heart disease, and that, feeling himself faint, he had sat down and gone to sleep. The magistrates sent him to prison for seven days, expressing the hope that he would recover from his ailments during that period. I do not know the names of those magistrates. I wish I did, because I should like to pillory them before—

I am sure I shall not be allowed to reply to the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to magistrates, and I submit that his observations are entirely out of order.

On that point of Order. Is not my hon. and gallant Friend entitled, without reflecting actually on the conduct of the magistrates, to draw the attention of this Committee to the administration of justice in view of the control which the hon. Gentleman has over it? It is perfectly possible for him to circularise magistrates calling attention to this class of case.

I wish to call attention to the fact that this is the Prison Vote, and not the Home Office.

It is not in order to reflect on the conduct of magistrates.

I bow to your ruling, Sir William, but perhaps I may venture, with the indulgence of the Committee, to draw attention to yet one more case. It is the case of a man who was condenmned under similar circumstances, but this time it was for begging. He was sent to prison for seven days for begging. For what was he begging? Hot water—a little hot water to make his tea. He was sent to prison for seven days for that.

Where was this case?

The prison official who told the story said that as this man was a saint it did him no real harm and that he left prison unem-bittered. All I can say is that if it had happened to me it would have ruined me for life. I should never have got away from the sense of injustice. That old man was a better man than I am. His experience did him no harm, but there are not many such as he.

I would like to make one or two remarks from the point of view of a medical man on the very remarkable story which we have just heard. I sympathise, as I think all the Members of the Committee will sympathise, not only with the personal and human feeling which the hon. and gallant Member has put into his story, but when I have said that may I also say that I always feel that it is our business in this House to keep away from sentiment and to try to get at the actual facts of a case, and I am afraid the dramatic way in which my hon. and gallant Friend told his story would be more suitable to a novel than to the judicial discussion of the rights and wrongs of this case.

The man is dead.

The mere fact that he has drawn on that sentiment is liable to warp one's judgment, and one's judgment has got to be very carefully exercised putting aside the tremendous feeling of sympathy we have with a case of this sort. There is another side to the case in the sympathy one has to feel with the governor of a prison in dealing with all sorts of cases and the natural ingenuity of prisoners in trying to escape from or to mitigate their sentences—men who are prepared to do all sorts of things in order to escape from the effect of their convictions. A governor is liable to make mistakes. It must be recognised that, being human, governors will make mistakes. They have to be on the look out for the possibility of there being a deliberate miscarriage of justice in their decisions if they yield to sentiment.

Does my hon. Friend mean to infer in any way that Thomas Parker was malingering, and if so what evidence of it has he got?

No, Sir. If my hon. and gallant Friend will hear my argument out, he will see what I am trying to show. He must realise that the governors of prisons have an immensely difficult task. I do not know anything about this particular governor, but I hope that he, amongst others, is as human as everyone else, and that he would have a tendency to show leniency to those who have such a gallant record in His Majesty's Service as this particular prisoner had. We have to consider the real facts of the case. The hon. and gallant Member has talked of what is called claustrophobia, that is, a feeling of uncontrollable intolerance of conditions of restraint when in an assembly or in a closed place. I imagine that everyone would recognise the danger of carrying things too far if that description were applied to the objection of every prisoner to being shut in a cell. Certainly it might apply to those cases we have heard of in Russia lately. Everyone might have that feeling when shut into a cell.

Medically speaking, the word claustrophobia, like many of the terms used in psychological medicine, has an indefinite meaning; its general meaning is very clear, but it is indefinite. One cannot define it clearly except by a general assessment of the individual's honesty in explaining his feelings, being able to analyse them himself and to communicate them to the medical man who is examining him. It is extremely difficult to be sure of that condition in a person. A very great friend of mine was for many years a biological master and a house master of great distinction in one of the largest of our public schools. He has retired now. He was a man alive to all the realities of life, he was what one would call essentially a man, and yet all the way through he had this feeling of claustrophobia. It affected him especially in church. When he was in church the feeling became insufferable—he felt he could not remain there beyond a certain time. He called it claustrophobia, but it is a condition which requires a great deal of analysis, and is a most difficult subject upon which to make up one's mind. Obviously there is the greatest possible danger in bringing claustrophobia into legislation, because it would be almost impossible to deny that there was some claustrophobia, some feeling against being shut up, in the case of every prisoner. What is required, obviously, is a very close supervision of prisoners, especially those of nervous temperament, during the whole of their time in prison, without waiting until they are complaining of one particular trouble or another. They should be kept constantly under review, and there should be constant reports to the Governor, especially with respect to those who are most likely to suffer from this or other manifestations of nervous sensitiveness and disorder.

That brings me to the last point, with which, I hope, the Under-Secretary of State will deal in his reply. I am not clear as to how far the prison governor in this case was constantly advised by his medical officer. The ordinary procedure is for the medical officer to be in constant control and to keep under his supervision all the prisoners at all times. I should like to know about his reports to the Governor in this case, whether the governor can say that he was in touch with the medical officer in regard to this case, apart from that of other prisoners, and was alive to the medical aspect of this class of case. These are cases—

Might I ask the hon. Member a question on that? It would be of great value if he could say, out of the very great wealth of his experience, and naturally because of his medical experience, something upon a point which up to now has been quite inexplicable. I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears), who put the case so well, and I want to know whether it is probable that an injury of such a kind, and which caused this man's death, would not have been noticed by two or three people who were standing near when he fell?

It depends entirely upon the nature of the injury. There are many injuries, as my Noble Friend knows, when out hunting, in which there is apparently little injury caused at the time, but where, if there has been a fracture of the skull, within half an hour a man may suddenly drop dead. You cannot tell, simply because there is concussion and the concussion is recovered from, that there is not some serious injury inside. It would be very difficult to tell. I have not heard of this case before, and I have not looked into the details of it. I cannot say more than that. The point about which I really am anxious is the extent to which the Governors of prisons have the same understanding of their responsibility, as regards the mental and general medical conditions of the prisoners, as has a commanding officer in the Army.

Since the South African War there has been introduced into the Army and into the King's Regulations a very definite regulation which lays down that it is the commanding officer who is responsible for the health of his troops, and not the medical officer. The commanding officer is responsible, and he has to take the advice of the medical officer and decide for himself how far he accepts that advice. I want to know whether that is a rule in prisons. Is the governor of a prison responsible for the life and the other conditions of the prisoners, or does he think that has nothing to do with him and is a question for the medical officer? I maintain that the only proper rule of supervision, whether it is in the prisons or in the Army, is for the layman to be responsible. He may take the advice of the medical officer. That being so, he will have to be in constant touch with his medical officer, and to recognise to what extent the medical officer's advice is to be accepted and to what extent the advice is to be criticised, from the sensible point of view of the ordinary practical man of intelligence. He must know to what extent he has to overrule the medical officer, and to what extent he may apply the medical officer's knowledge.

I am doubtful and sceptical as to whether this has been introduced into the general prison regulations for all prisoners. I know that some governors are not only alive to this matter, but consider it as their responsibility. Is it officially laid down? I am afraid there may be some governors of prisons—the prison in question may be one of them; I do not know —who do not recognise it as their duty to be in active and constant touch with the medical officers and to give the medical officers as much possible latitude in carrying out their difficult job of supervising the condition of the prisoners and reporting upon it.

Is there any scheme for insisting upon some kind of training of prison governors in the main outlines of the care of health and mentality? Combatant officers in the Army have to go through a regular course before or after they get their commission. It is a subject which is constantly coming into examinations, because it is recognised that officers must understand these things. The admirable Army Service Corps give them a pretty sound instruction. Is it not essential for prison governors before or after appointment, to have training in the psychology, mentality and health of prisoners? I do not believe that there is any such training, and I am afraid that it is left to individual governors, or the visitors of prisons, who are often totally ignorant of this aspect of the work.

This is a new line of thought which has developed during the last 10 or 20 years here, as to the essential necessity of understanding the physical and mental health of individuals before you can expect efficient work or behaviour from them. It is a line of progress that must be brought into our prison management. This case offers a good opportunity to raise questions which have a far wider bearing. I hope that we shall have some reply given to us as to the wider bearing, as well as in regard to the conduct of this. particular governor and his qualifications.

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) for giving me notice that he was going to raise this case. I realise that his absence at this moment is unavoidable. He has sent me a note to say that he has had to leave the Committee, and regrets that he will not be present to hear my reply. He gave us a very pathetic story in connection with this case, and upon that story he based a demand for an inquiry. He suggested, also, that there should be amending legislation. It would be out of order if I were to suggest that amending legislation was either necessary or desirable. As far as an inquiry is concerned, I hope that I shall be able to convince the Committee that there is no necessity for any further inquiry in regard to this case. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his appreciation of the sympathetic inquiries which were made, and for his appreciation of the sympathetic answers which I gave in the House of Commons a few days ago.

The Committee is familiar with this case, as a result of the Questions and the Answers to which I have made reference. My hon. and gallant Friend has given an account of this man Parker's War service. I am not going to deny his patriotism or his bravery during those years of crisis, but that point is really not in issue to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend proceeded to say that this man had never been in prison before, and he spoke as though this had been his only offence. At least, that was the implication that was left in my mind as the result of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech—that this was the first offence that this man had committed. I do not know where my hon. and gallant Friend gets his information from, but I have gathered information from official sources, and this is what I find to be the fact: When this man was before the court, he admitted that he had been twice convicted and fined, once for drunkenness and once for gaming; also—

Is that absolutely certain? I know that he had been accused of those offences, but not that he had been convicted in either case.

These were his admissions; and also that he had been arrested on three other occasions, once for drunkenness and twice for sleeping out, but he had been discharged on those occasions. Having regard to the fact that Parker admitted that he had twice previously been let off on a similar charge, there is really no ground for taking up with the magistrate the question why he thought it necessary to send this man to prison.

Is it fair to imply, because he was not convicted, that he was let off? Might it not be just as true to say that there was no proof?

Surely, the man's own admission must be regarded as proof in a case of this kind, as it would be in all cases.

As far as his admission is concerned.

As far as his admission is concerned, and, surely, his admission is worth a good deal. I submit that this case affords no real reason why any circular should be sent out by my right hon. Friend to the magistrates as a whole. It would not be proper for the Secretary of State to suggest to the courts that they should not impose the penalties which the law allows them to impose; it would be an unjustifiable attempt to interfere with their discretion, the exercise of which must depend on the facts of any particular case.

Is there a chance of the law being altered?

Before my hon and gallant Friend came in, I explained that we are not allowed on these occasions to discuss legislation. On an appropriate occasion I should be prepared to reply on that point if my hon. and gallant Friend desires to raise it on such an appropriate occasion. So much for the offences. My hon. and gallant Friend says that this man went to prison quietly. That again is new to me. My information is that, at any rate after he got into prison, he was unruly and almost violent the whole of the time.

The whole time?

Practically the whole time. He was a very violent man, a man who would not obey orders. In fact, he made the life of the officers as uncomfortable as he could from the very moment that he entered the walls of the prison. My hon. and gallant Friend then quotes the prison doctor's evidence. It is true that the behaviour of this man may have been an indication of claustrophobia; but the prison doctor said quite clearly that in his opinion this complaint was not the cause of the man's death. Some of his actions may have indicated claustrophobia, but on the whole, on balance, on his general behaviour, the prison doctor reached that conclusion. It must be remembered in that connection that this man was not only unruly when he was confined to his cell; he was just as unruly when he was on the exercise ground; and that, as I previously said to my hon. and gallant Friend, is surely an indication, at any rate, that he was generally unruly, and was not necessarily suffering from this complaint.

Surely, if the man was in a state of frenzy due to claustrophobia, his being taken out into the exercise yard would not cure it. May I also beg my right hon. Friend to read carefully afterwards the evidence of the doctor as it will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

If one had to investigate the thousands of persons who are in prison, and a proportion of whom behave in exactly the same way as this man behaved, in order, possibly, to convince, or attempt to convince, the prison doctor that they are suffering from claustrophobia, my hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised when I tell him that, when you get cases like this, which are not at all uncommon, it is exceedingly difficult to find out the genuine cases. Taking the evidence as a whole, and studying this man's condition as a whole, the prison doctor came to a definite conclusion. My hon and gallant Friend must realise that it is very easy to imitate a complaint of this kind. That was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). Thousands of prisoners in the prisons of this country are only too anxious not to be kept locked up in a confined space, and for that reason many of them are inclined to make noises and be unruly when they are in a cell, but it does not necessarily follow in every case that they are suffering from this particular complaint. May I repeat that one of the officers in evidence said that he had had to close the prisoner's door on seven occasions? The medical officer admitted that this suggested the possibility of claustrophobia, but it was only a possibility, for this man not only refused, whenever he could, to have his cell door closed, but he refused to obey any orders which were given him by the officers of the prison.

There were no other corroborative circumstances except the fact that Parker was aggrieved at being sent to prison; but he is not the only prisoner who is aggrieved at being sent into confinement. The medical officer did not state that the prisoner suffered from claustrophobia, nor did he suspect it, nor was there any reason to suspect it. All that he knew was that the prisoner was a healthy man of average intelligence and of sound mind. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans made a statement with regard to the numbers of prisoners who are making out that they are suffering from this complaint. I am glad that he, as a medical man, made that statement, for it agrees with the information that we have at the Home Office but it will come with greater weight from him, as he has so much knowledge of this complaint.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans also asked a question. He wanted to know whether the governor was solely responsible for the prison, with particular reference to the health of the prisoners themselves. The governor of any prison is, of course, responsible for the health of the prisoners as he is for everything else inside the prison walls but, naturally, he accepts the advice of one who knows a great deal more about health matters than he can possibly do, and he is always guided in regard to matters of health by the prison doctor. For instance, the governor does not sentence a prisoner to punishment unless the medical officer certifies that he is fit for punishment.

My right hon. Friend says in "matters of health." It is only more or less latterly that we have included in health mental health, which often seems to people only a question of temper and so on. I wonder whether he similarly gives due weight to the opinion of his medical officers as regards the mental psychology of the prisoners?

Certainly he does, as was done in this case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle also spoke of having been in touch with specialists. It is not for a layman like myself to judge what value attaches to the opinion of a mental specialist, based solely on the mental condition of a man whom he has never seen, because the specialist whom my hon. and gallant Friend has consulted obviously never saw Parker at all. The evidence on which my hon. and gallant Friend's mental specialist bases his opinion was apparently brought to his notice after the man was dead. It was not previously in the possession of the prison medical officer who, on hearing it, agreed that claustrophobia was a possible explanation of Parker's frenzy. He had previously had no reason to suspect such a condition. Almost the last remark of my hon. and gallant Friend was that this man had come to a brutal end. Those were rather harsh words to use. They are a reflection not only upon the deputy-governor, who was in charge in the absence of the governor himself, but also upon the other officers. Let it be emphasised that the jury came to the decision that the cause of death was accidental. There was no rider, and there was no blame attached to anyone. While having every sympathy with this man's relatives, I cannot see that any further action is either necessary or desirable.

Are there any qualifications demanded in the appointment of governors or deputy-governors with regard to seeing that they have some elementary knowledge of health conditions, sanitation and psychology?

Not as a general rule, although some governors have special knowledge.

Would it not be advisable, in as much as appointing committees are not always seized of modern ideas, for the Home Office to issue some such regulations in order that governors may start well equipped in this way?

Of course, some of these men have very special qualifications.

And some have not.

That is true, but their qualifications are taken into consideration before appointment. I do not think it would be right to lay it down that a man would be disqualified from taking a position of this sort because he did not happen to have special knowledge of medical subjects.

I do not ask for special knowledge.

Any knowledge. After all, they have advisers, the medical officers, and they are right in accepting the advice of a man who has real specialist knowledge, especially in cases of this kind.

It may be for the convenience of this House if I make a statement in regard to prisons in general, for which the hon. Member opposite asks. He always seems to prefer that I should speak first on occasions such as this and, unfortunately, he generally succeeds, with his persuasive powers, and he generally has the opportunity of replying to the observations that I have made. There is no part of the Home Office work that is more interesting than that of prisons, their management and their population. My right hon. Friend takes a very great personal interest in this question as a whole. Since I assumed my present office I have not had an opportunity of visiting the prisons, but on the last occasion that I was at the Home Office as Under-Secretary I visited 20 or 30 in almost every part of the country. On every occasion I managed to get out of them without having too long a period of detention. I intended to-day to speak under five headings, first with regard to prison population, secondly about the employment of prisoners, a very important matter on which I carried out an inquiry some little time ago; next under the heading of persistent offenders, then in connection with persons sentenced for non-payment of money, a matter which has attracted a great deal of attention of recent days, and, finally, to make some remarks on prison staffs.

The daily average population of prisons, which had been 11,200 in 1931, rose in 1932 to 12,800. This increase of 1,100 included an increase of nearly 300 in the Borstal population, an increase of about 60 in convicts serving sentences of penal servitude and an increase of nearly 700 in the number of men serving sentences of imprisonment. Seeing that most prison sentences are for periods not exceeding from one to three months, an increase of 700 in the daily average population is an increase, probably, of between 2,000 and 3,000 in the number of sentences that are passed. This is, no doubt, due mainly to the increase in certain cases of crime, particularly housebreaking and shop-breaking and cases of false pretences. The increase in the number of crimes is only one among several factors which determine the size of the prison population. Of the persona who are found guilty of major crimes and dealt with at the assizes or quarter sessions, a large proportion are sentences of penal servitude, but these higher courts deal with only about 12 per cent. of persons found guilty of indictable offences; 88 per cent. of indictable offences, which are mainly larcenies, are dealt with by courts of summary jurisdiction, and of the adults found guilty by these courts only some 24 per cent. are sentenced to imprisonment, the remaining 76 per cent. being fined or dealt with under the Probation Act.

I would draw the special attention of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) who takes a great interest in the matter, and who raised the point on the wrong Vote, to these figures. In the last few years it has been generally the policy of the courts to make greater use than was made in the pre-War years of fines and probation as alternatives to imprisonment. The decline in the prison population which occurred during the post-War years was due, in part, at any rate, to the fact that the proportion of offenders sentenced to imprisonment was smaller. It may be that the tendency to make increasing use of the alternatives to imprisonment has now reached its limit, and that may be, in some measure, at any rate, responsible for the recent rise in the prison population. So much for the prison population.

I come to the employment of prisoners. This is one of the greatest difficulties with which the Home Office has to contend. That the present arrangement for employing prisoners leaves much to be desired has long been recognised by the Prison Commissioners. As was stated by the recent Committee on Persistent Offenders:

"Most of the people who come to prison repeatedly are indifferent workers, untrained and ill-fitted by temperament or habit for steady employment, and prison does little to remedy their industrial inefficiency. The kind of work a man learns to do in prison is seldom of much use outside, and he does not acquire in a prison workshop the habit of working with speed and concentration."

Those were the views expressed by the Committee on Persistent Offenders, and they show more clearly than I can express in my own words the difficulty we have with regard to the employment of these prisoners. Certain prison occupations, particularly outdoor work in connection with the repairs to and upkeep of prison buildings, provide occupation in which prisoners work with a will, but others naturally are ill-calculated to stimulate interest or effort. The practical difficulties involved in this problem are considerable. There is the difficulty, for example, of obtaining suitable orders for the work which we can carry out in prisons. There are the financial considerations which forbid the undertaking in most prisons of work which involves expensive material or expensive machinery, such as might be spoilt by those workers who are unskilled and often careless, and are not too enthusiastic with regard to the work which they are performing. There is the difficulty which most prisons have of obtaining open-air work for men for whom tasks of a labouring character are most suitable. While, therefore, recognising the serious nature of those obstacles, the Home Secretary is most anxious that every practical step should be taken to overcome them. From the point of view of discipline and training, the important factor in prison treatment is that prisoners who are physically fit should work hard. But, on the other hand, if a man is not fit for these hard tasks he has to be found something of a lighter nature, and it is not always easy to find such light work for such men.

With a view to effecting improvements in connection with prison work, a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. friend the Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) has been appointed to review the whole question of prison industries. This, as I have already said, is not the first occasion upon which we have had an inquiry into prison work. The Committee have already devoted a great deal of thought to the problem and have spent a great deal of time on the subject, and we shall await their report in the confident hope that their recommendations will be of great assistance to the prison authorities and will lead to desirable improvements throughout the prison system.

As the Committee have sat for a considerable time can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to receive the Report?

No, Sir. I cannot say when the Report will be received. All I can say is that they are working on the problem with great energy, and I hope the Report will be forthcoming at no distant date. I will now say a few words with regard to persistent offenders. For many years attention has been directed to the fact that a substantial proportion of the prison population consists of a stage army of persistent offenders who are neither reformed nor deterred by prison sentences. Most of the persons who come to the prison for the first time do not return, but of the comparatively small proportion who come back on a second or a third sentence, a large number return again and again. From month to month and year to year additions are made to this group of recidivists, with the result that actually about 50 per cent. of the persons received in prison in any year are persons who have had previous experience of prison sentences.

The Departmental Committee which reviewed this problem last year came to the conclusion that, if more satisfactory methods were to be devised for dealing with persistent offenders over the age of 21, it would be necessary, instead of passing upon such offenders sentences of imprisonment of six months or of a year, to empower courts of assizes and quarter sessions to pass long sentences of custodal detention if it appears to the Court that by reason of the offender's criminal habits, or tendencies, such detention is desirable for the protection of the public and the training of the offender. And in that respect it is obviously necessary to consider the protection of the public even more than the training of the offender. The recommendations of the Committee which would involve legislation for the amendment of the penal law will certainly raise issues of great importance. The decisions on those issues must be deferred until an appropriate opportunity arises for legislation, but the importance of the matter is fully realised, and the whole subject is receiving most careful attention and examination.

I come now to the heading of "Persons Sentenced to Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Sums of Money." Over 40 per cent. of the persons sent to prison— and that is a remarkable number—are not so sent because they have committed offences for which nothing less than a sentence of imprisonment is warranted, but because they have failed to pay fines for minor offences or have failed to pay sums due under wife maintenance orders or affiliation or other orders made by the courts. Over 40 per cent. of the people who are imprisoned go there, not because of the offences they have committed, but because they have failed to pay the penalty which has been inflicted upon them. These persons are committed to prison for comparatively short periods and consequently, though they account for 40 per cent. of the receptions, they account for only about 9 per cent. of the daily average population. The total number of persons sent to prison for these defaults is small compared with the number of persons who pay their fines or comply with orders of the courts for the payment of sums of money, and it is, of course, essential that nothing should be done to undermine the sanction by which obedience is secured in the great majority of cases to the orders made by judicial authorities.

We must not overlook that danger. Every one, however, will agree that, if it is possible to reduce the number of persons sent to prison for these causes without weakening unduly the necessary legal sanctions, all practical measures should be taken for that purpose. With this end in view, the Home Secretary has appointed still another Committee. The terms of reference and the constitution of subject have already been published. It will be some time before that Committee can report, but theirs will be a very important investigation, and we hope that as a result of their labours the prison population will materially decline.

Finally, I wish to say a few words about the prison staff, because we have been concerned with that subject to-day in connection with an individual case. But apart from that, I believe that it is desirable on an occasion such as this to say a few words about those people who are carrying out a very distasteful work, and, in my submission, are carrying it out in a very humane and efficient manner. Various criticisms have been made of the prison system and suggestions put forward for its improvement. All such criticisms and suggestions will receive careful attention. In the prison system there are many important features worthy of discussion. Almost every aspect of this subject is worthy of very close consideration. Buildings and the equipment of prisons, employment, with which I have already dealt, the classification of prisoners, religious ministrations, educational arrangements, libraries, aid on discharge, after care, are matters of very great importance.

Another matter of great importance is the character of the men and women who are immediately responsible for the supervision of the prisoners and the carrying out from day to day of prison routine. Much of the work done by these prison officers is of an exacting kind. Their duties call for constant vigilance and care and also for a combination of firmness, tact and understanding, which is essential for the mainteance of discipline. All who have an intimate acquaintance with the prison system, including the voluntary workers who visit the prisoners and who conduct educational classes, have a high opinion of the prison officers. On their capacity for controlling the prisoners under their charge and for maintaining discipline in a manner firm, reasonable and humane, the success of the system depends. Whatever may be the imperfections of our prison system, commendation is, at any rate, due to the general work of the prison staff.

I apologise to the Committee for having dealt at some length with these five problems. May I say that we shall at all times welcome fair and reasonable criticism, and if I can at the end of the debate answer any questions that may be put to me, or if I can give any fuller information in regard to the many problems with which we are confronted, I shall be only too happy so to do. May I sum up in this way? Prison administration is a complex problem. Society roust be protected from its lawless elements, and we must endeavour during the period of detention to reform these anti-social elements, so that when they return to the outside world they may be more useful members of society. This task is probably our greatest problem. On the other hand, we must not move too rapidly in our reforms. It is dangerous to hasten experiment in reforms of this kind, for if the experiment fails, the tendency is for the consequential reaction to gather so much momentum that when it stops you may be far back beyond the point at which the experiment in reform started. There is a world of truth in Stevenson's dictum:

"To hasten slowly is to arrive."

True progress in prison reform is made by taking only one step at a time. That is the policy which we are pursuing, and we believe that it will succeed, because there is no failure, and there can be no failure, except in giving up trying, and we do not intend to do that. I submit the Vote with confidence to the Committee.

I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.

It is well that our rules of procedure permit of an annual review of the administration of our prisons. It gives an opportunity to Members of Parliament to ventilate any grievances which may arise from time to time regarding the treatment meted out by the authorities to what are generally termed the outcasts of society. On that point may I say that I was very much struck by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) relating to the case from Birmingham prison. The representative of the Home Office has made a reply to those charges. Although a great deal has been contradicted in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle, I am not personally satisfied with all that was done inside the prison walls at Birmingham in relation to the treatment of the man Parker. I am almost sure that the Home Office itself cannot possibly be satisfied with all that happened inside the prison walls in connection with this case. I will leave it at that.

I want to say a few words arising out of the speech just delivered by the Under-Secretary. He said that we must make baste slowly in prison reform, and just take one step at a time. What we want to be sure, in regard to the present Government, is whether they will take any step at all in anything. It is all very well to say "We will take one step at a time," but we on this side of the House are not sure that the Government are going to take any step at all. We know too well that if they do take any steps, they will be pretty slow in the march.

I should like to say something about the intervention of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in the Debate. I wish she were here to listen. I am not sure that she is playing fair by the Committee. The representative of the Home Office has replied quite courteously to the comments that she made and I want to touch upon them too, but she is not here to listen. She came into the House at 12.25 p.m., spoke from 12.30 to 12.42 p.m., and left the House at 12.45 p.m., for good. I should like to tell the Noble Lady that I am not willing to form part of an audience for her speeches, and that if she persists in simply coming to the House to deliver a speech and then leaves the House immediately she has made it, I shall undertake the task of organising a general strike so that every Member of every political party will leave the House when she gets up to address it in future. That will probably cure her discourtesy.

We have an opportunity to-day of discussing, not only prison reform, but of measuring public sentiment towards crime and to focus the minds of our people upon the proper treatment of criminals. While any proposal for redeeming the criminal from his vicious habits is always received with sullen suspicion, it is nevertheless true to say that the treatment of our criminal population, in spite of setbacks on occasion, is becoming a great deal move humane as the years go by. The best minds of the nation are now-directed not only to the acts of the criminal against society, but to those very deep causes which lie in society itself which make the emergence of the criminal possible. It is quite an easy thing to blame the criminal for his acts; but anyone who cares to read the reports of the Prison Commissioners and their medical staff will come to the conclusion that some men are in gaol because the circumstances and environment of their lives have actually helped to make them into criminals. Consequently, society itself must bear some responsibility for their being in prison. Every criminal act must be regarded as the outcome of something wrong in society itself, as well as in the person who commits the deed. These assertions are fully borne out by the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners. Indeed, it can be truthfully said that the attitude of those who handle our criminal population inside prison walls is on the whole of a more humane order than that which prevails among the general public outside. The reports of the medical officers who work inside our prisons are far more humane than the statements made by the general public about our criminal population. That is all to the good.

The statistics which are provided for us in the Prison Commissioners' annual report give a very interesting picture of the situation. The Under-Secretary has already touched upon one or two points. Let me look at the matter in another way. The reception into prisons of convicted persons showed an average for the five years ended 1904, of 167,100. In the year 1014, ten years later, the figure declined to 158,782; and in the year 1924, ten years later still, the decrease was really amazing; the figure fell to 43,998. And all that happened in spite of an annual increase in the population of this country. Incidentally, I rather like the vocabulary employed by the Prison Commissioners. Imagine their using the word "reception" in Connection with men entering prison; it sounds rather touching and aristocratic, and I congratulate the Prison Commissioners on the vocabulary they employ in this connection. We have, therefore, this great decrease in the number of entrants into prisons. May I add that I have always held the old-fashioned view that this general improvement that is taking place is not due to the law. Law itself never makes any difference to men's behaviour.

Education and the proper training of the child, the spread of the social services of this country, which keep people from destitution, are the main factors in the decline of the prison population of this country. That is the main reason why I have always been against any reduction in our social services. But the number of persons convicted of offences and sent to prison is not always a clear indication of the volume of crime in the country. The fall in the figures of receptions into our prisons between 1914 and 1924 is largely accounted for by the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, which requires magistrates to give time for the payment of fines. Indeed, I should say that if all that the Under-Secretary of State suggested in his speech to-day were done; if we treated persistent offenders in the manner proposed; if all those who are sent to prison because they will not pay their fine were kept out; if there was an alteration in all those respects, I guarantee that there would still be a further decrease in the number of persons sent to prison in this country. In fact, it seems to me, at a casual glance, that there is a possibility, if we bent our minds to the proper treatment of these people, that we might be able to reduce the prison population by another 50 per cent. Let me analyse the figures further. The drop in the number of receptions in prisons fell again, and in 1929 it reached the low figure of 36,942. In 1930 it increased to 38,999, but in 1931 it fell to 37,417. That is to say, the number of persons sent to prison declined steadily from 1904 to 1929, but since then the figures are a little disturbing. The daily average of our prison population, including remands and debtor prisoners, rose from 11,676 in 1931 to 13,511 in November, 1932.

Now I come to a point which is very interesting to those who study these problems. While 29 prisons were closed between 1900 and 1930, the recent increase in the number of prisoners made it necessary to re-open prisons at Portsmouth, Lewes and Chelmsford, and I understand that the old prison at Nottingham has recently been made available for Borstal purposes. Everyone who takes interest in these problems will be sorry that we have recently been compelled to re-open some of the old prisons. We thought that we were well on the way to closing even more of them in this country. But, as I have said, an increase in our prison population is not necessarily the result of an increase in crime. Let me take an illustration to prove that assertion. There have been Press reports in this country for the last few years of a very alarmist nature and without the slightest foundation at all, about the increase in the number of motor bandits. Hon, Members will have listened to questions put in this House to the Home Office as to whether new legislation is to be introduced to deal with these motor bandits. I do not know from where these hon. Members have obtained their ideas, because as late as November, 1932, the Automobile Association sent a letter to the Press in which they said:

"The action recently taken by the police in various parts of the country against unscrupulous persons for circulating false reports of having been robbed or held up by motor bandits, not infrequently for the purpose of covering some misdemeanour or crime of their own, has been received with great satisfaction in motoring circles."

Let me read the last paragraph of this letter:

"Continued reports of robbery and violence on the highways are most damaging to motoring generally. It is quite possible that delicate or elderly persons have been influenced not to purchase cars and the laudable efforts to attract motor drivers to Britain must have suffered also. Motorists have been robbed, but the frequency of the genuine case can be estimated by the fact that the Automobile Association with its membership of nearly half a million has no record of a single complaint from any one of its members."

One would imagine from the newspaper reports that it was almost too dangerous nowadays to take out an Austin Seven even in Hyde Park. That is the attitude of mind created by the Press, and I hope that the Home Office will disabuse the minds of the public and the magistracy that these motor bandits are roaming about in such large numbers. It must be remembered also, when we talk about violent cases of breaking in and all the rest of it, that there falls into exactly the same category such trivial acts as the pulling down of the shutters of an empty kiosk and stealing cigarettes and sweets. When we come down to real crime, such as violence against the person and malicious and felonious wounding, it has all gradually decreased since the War. As I said, it is probably true that, were it not for the Press propaganda which has been evident during the last few years, there would have been no need to re-open any of our old prisons. Let me say, in passing, that when I have visited foreign countries I have made a point of finding out details of what we call vital statistics—statistics with regard to crime, infantile mortality, the average age at death, and so forth. I have come to the conclusion, especially since I attended the International Penitentiary Congress at Prague some years ago, that Great Britain is possibly still the safest country to live in of all countries, especially the industrial countries of the world.

If any hon. Member cares to look up statistics of the number of murders in this country, he will find that they have remained stationary while the population has more than doubled. It seems to me the newspaper press are giving more attention to murders the less there are of them. For instance, last year the total number of executions in this country was only 10. I am opposed to capital punishment altogether, but that is by the way. It seems that, as the number of murders declines, so the volume of detailed information about them in the Press increases pro rata. I gather that some years ago certain Sunday newspapers in this country, deliberately devoted a definite number of columns weekly to murders, and if they could not get a decent murder in London they went to Paris to find one. If it was not found in Paris they tried Chicago. If they could not find one in Chicago they brought out Charles Peace, and he serves them well on all occasions. I think that was worth while saying.

The accommodation in our existing prisons is for about 19,000 persons, and I think I am right in saying that it is totally inadequate. There are, for instance, some very, very old prisons, almost suffocated by buildings all around them. Particularly is that the case with regard to Pentonville. You cannot suitably treat your prison population, train them in workshops, and give them proper exercise unless you have very much more space and accommodation than you have in these old prisons. While we have travelled a long way in the more humane treatment of our prison population, we have still our old prisons, and they exist to-day just as they did 50 years ago. I would like to see something done to build more up-to-date prisons and remove them entirely out of the areas where the present prisons are situated, so that men sent to them might be made more physically and mentally efficient by a little more fresh air.

We are not, as a Labour party, satisfied with something else. We would like to see a distinction drawn in this country between those who are generally termed political prisoners, and ordinary criminals. In nearly every country in the world there is a distinction drawn between a man who has, if you like, delivered violent speeches, and been sent to prison, and the man who breaks into a house and commits burglary. Continental countries, I think, are in advance of ourselves in drawing a distinction between political and ordinary criminals. After all, there is a vast difference between stealing and saying things that are unpopular for the time being. That, in fact, is what most of these "politicals" are sent to prison for —saying violent things.

I am still uneasy regarding the attitude of the public towards the treatment of young offenders. I happened to be a member of the Committee which sat for about two years on this subject, and the Home Office has not gone as far as it might have done in carrying out the recommendations of that Committee with regard to methods for the better handling of young offenders. There is no doubt the public mind has been altered in a great measure on that. score, but there is still a great deal to be done to prevent boys and girls being sent to penal institutions, more especially those who have never had any previous convictions.

In spite of our probation system, 1,883 boys, of whom 46 per cent. had no previous proved offences, were sent to some penal institution in 1931. This is also the case in relation to 1,119 girls, of whom 40 per cent. had no previous offences against them. Complaint is generally made that magistrates are putting boys and girls three, four and five times on probation. There may be some reason in an argument of that kind, but let me reverse the order of the argument: It is monstrous that thousands of boys and girls should be sent to our prisons for the first offence and not put on probation at all. If I had my way, I would standardise in some manner the actions of magistrates. Let me give the case of a young girl in the Midlands. I think she was fined 12s. for selling tomatoes after closing time.

I am afraid the hon. Member cannot pursue sentences on this Vote.

In any case, may I say that a girl reached prison recently because she did not pay a 12s. fine inflicted under the Shops Act, while I know that in other parts of the country only a penny fine was imposed for a similar offence under the same Act.

It is pertinent to ask here how long does the Home Secretary intend to perpetuate the system of sending Borstal boys for preliminary investigation to Wormwood Scrubbs. Boys have been kept there for months because of lack of accommodation in a Borstal institution. Another point I wish to raise is indeed a very serious one. How long are boys under 21 years of age to be sent to Bedford, Liverpool and Wandsworth prisons where executions are carried out? It is rather revolting to the public mind that boys under 21 years of age should be sent to these prisons, and should remain there in fact when executions are actually being carried out. Executions may not be within sight, but news travels, even in prisons.

Let me read what the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs has to state on this very pertinent matter of boys in prisons, because a governor comes into most intimate contact with the prison population. He says:

"A number of lads under 21 are committed to prison who it would appear to me would be best on probation. This is a matter of great concern, as any fear of imprisonment which might have been in the lad's mind no longer exists. It is noticed in the case of fines that very often the amount is so large that it must have been obvious when awarding the sentence that the lad could not possibly pay."

That comes from the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs. I would not be entitled to do more than make passing reference to the necessity of very much more medical work in prisons. We must not decry the splendid work performed by the medical men who are there already, because in their own reports they give a fair picture of the tasks that they perform. I would, however, ask the Home Office to remember that we are not in fact, in connection with medical work in prisons, especially for the young, up to the standard of some Continental countries. As I have said before, I had the honour some years ago, on behalf of the Government, of visiting one of these medical observation institutions in Belgium. I know that the Belgian people differ from ourselves in many respects. They are all of one religion, and that makes all the difference in the world in the treatment of children. In spite of all that, I am sure that if our Government bent its mind towards greater medical attention for those who reach the prisons and Borstal institutions, we could lift many of these abnormal people out of their criminal tendencies and return them to society as decent citizens.

In this connection I would like to call attention to a new organisation that has emerged in this country, an institution which undertakes the scientific treatment of delinquents. It is an unofficial organisation so far, but it is backed by very eminent medical men and others in this country. While I know that it is very difficult for a Government department to take into its arms every new organisation that comes along, I do ask the Home Office to keep a kindly eye on the work of this organisation, and, if it is at all possible in future, to ask that organisation to come to the aid of the prison authorities and help them in the difficult tasks they are trying to perform.

A few words now about punishments inside the prisons for offences against prison rules. Those who compare these figures have pointed out some anomalies. One punishment is that of restraint. In 1931 in Dartmoor there were two cases in a population of 708. In Parkhurst there were 19 cases in a population of 904. That shows either that the prison population in Parkhurst is more unruly than that in Dartmoor, or that discipline differs; or it may be that the prisoners in Parkhurst are of a lower mental standard than those of Dartmoor. Take the punishments in 1931 apart from restraint. In Dartmoor there were 96 persons punished out of a population of 709, and in Parkhurst 130 out of a population of 904.

Reference has been made to the report of the Committee on Persistent Offenders. Frankly, I say that the Under-Secretary did not give us very much hope that the Government intend to do anything with that report. As a matter of fact reports about the treatment of crime and criminals are littered all over the place in the Home Office, and the Government does not seem to take any heed of them. What is the use of appointing commissions and spending thousands of pounds on printing their reports, and on travelling expenses and the rest of it, and then for the Home Office to say: "The report is an excellent one; it is very interesting reading. The recommendations ought to be carried out", and then nothing is done! I would urge the Government to do something with this report on persistent offenders, and to do it very soon, because I am sure that the recommendations in that report are worth implementing.

I do not like to read in the report of the Prison Commissioners of those 10 cases of corporal punishment for violence. I do not believe that flogging does anybody any good. In support of my contention I would quote a very much greater authority than myself. On this question of flogging I am sure that flogging develops a coarseness, not only in the person who is flogged but in the person who does the flogging as well. Someone said that cruel punishments have an inevitable tendency to produce cruelty in the people who administer them. This is what Jeremy Bentham said about flogging:

"The legislator who orders whipping knows not what he does, and the judge is nearly as ignorant."

And I agree with him.

The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, in the course of an extremely interesting speech, made some reference to the Persistent Offenders Committee. He said that the report of the Committee was still under examination by the Home Office. I agree with what the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) has said. I hope the Home Office will soon come to some decision as to what action, if any, they propose to take on that report. It was issued on 30th April of last year, and the Home Office must have had ample time to consider it. The report is of importance because it goes to the root of all prison reform and administration. It touches on the question of the persistent offenders who form such a large proportion of our prison population. I have the unique experience of seeing the offender almost from his youth up. I see him as I am a manager of a Home Office school, I see him in connection with my membership of the Probation Committee at the Home Office, I see him because I am a member of three Borstal committees, and again because I am a member of a board of visitors to a convict prison. The more I see of him the more am I convinced that you cannot reform the prisoner of criminal tendencies if you start reforming him too late.

I am much disturbed by observing the number of young persons under 21 who are sent to prison even now for sentences of under one month. The hon. Member for Westhoughton referred to the large number of boys and girls under 21 who are sent to prison by the magistrates—in some cases, boys and girls who have never been in prison before or who have never even been in court. But he did not call attention to a fact which is of even greater importance, that out of the 1,883 boys, not less than 946, or about half, were sent to prison for one month or less, and over 230 of them were sent to prison for seven days or less. In the case of the girls, 59 out of a total of 119— again about half—were sent to prison for one month or less. It is neither a deterrent nor is it reformative to send boys and girls of that age to prison for two or three weeks. It is simply encouraging them in the view that, after all, prison is not such a bad place as they thought it was before they got there.

If the Home Office could do anything by circularising the magistrates to discourage them from giving short sentences to young persons it would go a long way substantially to reduce our prison population. It is because of that consideration, that I am anxious that the Home Office should consider seriously the introduction of some definite scheme of training for those who show a persistent tendency to crime. Preventive detention which was introduced in 1908 has largely broken down because men are never sentenced to it until they are so steeped in crime and so hardened that nothing on earth could alter them. They merely sat in Camp Hill which is now a Borstal—I think they have been removed to Portsmouth— and waited for the opportunity to get out again, and probably they got out only to come back once more. The percentage of successes from preventive detention is almost nil simply because the men were never sent to preventive detention until it was practically useless to do so.

The Home Office should be encouraged in trying to come to a decision on that report because of the success of the scheme for training young convicts at Chelmsford. There, some 18 months or two years ago, they collected a number of convicts of the younger types, not "star" convicts but a special class of men who had been in prison before, but nevertheless were not hardened criminals. They gave those men intensive training with modern workshop accommodation. On the whole that training has proved a success and although the men were in many cases of a troublesome type, in- eluding some of the worst young criminals in the country, apart from two particularly bad outbreaks they have behaved extremely well. Much of that result is due to the fact that there is an exceptionally good governor in charge. The Home Office have decided to remove from that prison men undergoing sentences of imprisonment, and to make it solely a convict prison. I think that is an advantage because you cannot mix the two classes as they are subject to different forms of remission. I have every hope that in the ensuing years that scheme of training young convicts, apart from the older men with whom they used to mix in Parkhurst and Dartmoor, will have a beneficial effect on the criminal statistics of this country. The hon. Member for Westhoughton made some reference to the fact that boys who were sentenced to Borstal detention were collected at Wormwood Scrubs and I gather that he objected to the lads being collected there.

I understand that they are often kept there for an unduly long time because there is no room for them in the Borstal institutions. I do not think I would have much objection to the boys being collected at Wormwood Scrubs for transmission to Borstal, but there is an objection to keeping them there for a long period.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought out that point, because it was not clear to me, or, I think, to other hon. Members that that was his view. I agree with him that it is a mistake to keep lads for a long time in Wormwood Scrubs, but I know that the period has been much shortened and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will refer to that matter later. I hope the hon. Member for Westhoughton does not dispute that it is essential to have these lads collected in order that they may undergo the medical examination to which he attached considerable importance. They have to be collected also in order that it may be decided whether they should go to a Borstal like Portland where the most hardened cases go, or to a Borstal like Feltham where the borderline cases and the cases of boys who are physically and mentally weak are dealt with, or whether they are offenders of the ordinary type who should go to Rochester or Lowdham. On that subject I would like to ask the Under-Secretary, now that he has greater accommodation at Nottingham and Camp Hill, to give further consideration in dividing up these Borstal lads to separating those who are older from those who are younger. I agree with the system by which certain cases go to Feltham and certain cases to Portland, but as he knows you get young lads up to 16½ along with older lads who are nearer the 21 years end of the scale, and I am convinced it would be to the advantage of our Borstal administration if we could to some extent separate the age groups. I know that there are difficulties but I believe that those difficulties could be overcome.

We are all glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to set up a Committee to deal with the question of imprisonment for debt. If we could find some scheme to deal with these people, who form a very large proportion of our prison population, and who are not there for any serious offences-but for default in paying a fine, we should go a long way towards reaching the ideal of my hon. Friend opposite, namely, to close permanently a numher of our prisons. I associate myself with what he said about prisons in the centres of large towns. Every one who knows Pentonville will agree that its site is the very worst place for a modern prison, but there is also no doubt that to replace Pentonville with a new building outside London would be a big financial undertaking. As one interested in prison reform I would like to see it, but as Chairman of the Estimates Committee I would probably, from another point of view, not like to see it.

May I make one observation with regard to something that the hon. Member opposite said about flogging in prisons for offences against prison discipline? I think most people know that flogging is only permitted in very limited circumstances, mainly and primarily for violence against a prison officer. The hon. Member said that flogging always produced coarseness, both in the case of the person flogged and in the case of the person who gave the flogging. From my own personal experience, I do not agree with that. I dislike flogging as much as anybody, but I have seen enough of prison administration to realise that it is essential that it should be retained in the prison code as a last resort. We had a case in Chelmsford prison only about 18 months ago, in which a warder was almost killed. He was set upon, when his back was turned, by four men, who cut his head open with a piece of lead piping, in order to get his keys, which, I am glad to say, they were unable to do, because he held on to them, although he was almost unconscious. That man's life was touch-and-go for some weeks. It was just open to question whether those men would have to be tried for murder. They were flogged, and two of them are entirely different men to-day from what they were when that incident took place. They are saner, quieter, and better, and they are certainly not coarser men.

Therefore, I do not agree that in every case a flogging necessarily has the effect which the hon. Member opposite thinks, and I am convinced that if you abolished the power to flog for serious offences of that kind in prison, there would, among certain types of prisoners, be such an occurrence of wild crime that it would be impossible to maintain prison discipline. After all, flogging is very seldom resorted to. It can only be adopted in very limited circumstances, but the fact that it can be resorted to is, I think, a tremendous power in maintaining prison discipline, and certainly I do not think it does harm in the long run to the prisoners concerned. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to deal with any of those points in his reply, I shall be very grateful to him.

I should like to say how very much I appreciate the speech of the hon. Member opposite, who has voiced many of my opinions about these matters. There is one point which has not been referred to, in which I take great interest, and that is the question of observation centres. It seems to me that great stress has been laid on the number of young men and young women sent to prison nowadays, and the question of observation centres is very acute. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister will tell us what is the attitude of the Government with regard to the extension of these centres.

I think this debate has been extraordinary useful, and it has certainly been helpful to the Department. Several very interesting points have been under discussion, and I can assure those hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion that all the suggestions which they have made shall be given very full consideration by the Department under my right hon. Friend. There are one or two points with which I can deal at this moment. I was particularly glad that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) brought to light the truth with regard to motor bandits. He said he had read in various sensational papers that there had been in the last year or two a very great increase in this form of crime, and he read a letter circulated, I think, by the Automobile Association to prove that this was a very exaggerated statement which had been appearing in the Press. I also have read wild accounts of robbery with violence and of cars being held up by motor bandits. In fact, there have been very harrowing tales, and I have no doubt that the circulation of certain organs of the Press has been increased owing to the fact that there have been very large placards in connection with these cases.

But what are the actual facts? The facts are, so far as the Metropolitan police district is concerned—and this extends 30 miles across and includes very many miles of quiet country roads—that actually there has only been one case which has been brought to the notice of the police in the last two years of a motorist having been held up by a motor bandit on the road. I hope the combination of the statement that I have made and the assurance given by the Automobile Association will reassure the people of this country that there is not so much danger as the sensational Press try to make out to people travelling in motor cars on the various highways and byways of this country.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton doubts the Government's sincerity in giving full and sympathetic consideration to the report of the Persistent Offenders Committee. I did tell him, in my opening observations, that legislation is required to deal with this problem. The importance of the problem is fully recognised by my right hon. Friend and by the Government as a whole, and I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will seize the earliest opportunity to place his views upon this matter before the House of Commons. He mentioned flogging, and that has been dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson), who has dealt with it far more efficiently than I could. I agree very largely with the views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend.

With regard to the Persistent Offenders Committee, I complained that there was nothing more definite in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made as to the intentions of the Government than he has made just now, which leaves us absolutely in the air so far as the near future is concerned.

It is obvious to the hon. Member that there is a very great deal of business which has to be brought before this House of a very urgent character. It is not for me to decide when certain legislation can be introduced. The question should be rightly submitted to the Leader of the House, and I cannot make any promise as to a date or as to the likelihood of a date. All that I can repeat is that my right hon. Friend is alive to the importance of this matter and that he will, at the earliest opportunity, take the House into his confidence on the subject. I presume that the way in which he will do it will be by the introduction of a Bill as soon as it is convenient to introduce it.

With regard to flogging, as I say, my hon. and gallant Friend behind me has dealt with the question very fully, and I have nothing to add to what he has said. Flogging, however much we may dislike it, is quite clearly a deterrent. It is only meted out in the most exceptional cases, and I think it is desirable that those exceptional cases should be dealt with in this way. I believe that good more than evil will result from the measures which are taken, however severe they may appear to the hon. Member. The hon. Member also referred to young prisoners and stated that these young prisoners were kept unduly long at Wormwood Scrubs, which, as he knows, is a collecting centre. Only a portion of Wormwood Scrubs is used for these young persons; there is a separate wing apart from the other parts of the prison, and Wormwood Scrubs itself is a prison where, in the main, there are only star prisoners and to which only star prisoners and young prisoners are committed. it is the best prison of its kind to which these young persons could be sent. It is obviously our intention to reduce the stay in collecting centres to as short a period as possible. At present, I think, that it is about five weeks. We hope to be able to reduce it shortly to a month, but the time which is spent there is very well spent, both in the initial preparation of the boys for their training in the institutions to which they are subsequently sent, and in the investigations carried out by the women workers and by the medical officers. These observations are of great value, not only in deciding the allocation of these cases, but in connection with their subsequent training.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford asked whether we could divide up the Borstal lads by age. He said that there were difficulties in connection with this, and he knows that as well as I do. We have met those difficulties, however, and he will be glad to know that the older lads of about 20 and 21 are already segregated. He may be interested to know that we distinguish these boys from those who are at the other Borstal institutions by allowing them to wear trousers, whereas the younger boys at the other institutions wear shorts. The hon. Member for Westhoughton also had something to say about the committal of men under 21 to prisons where executions are carried out. Of course, it is undesirable that those prisoners should be sent to prisons of that kind, but as executions are liable to take place at every local prison, it is unavoidable that they should be committed on occasions to prisons where executions have been and may be carried out. There is one statement which the hon. Member made which I should like to contradict. One almost might describe it as a fantastic statement. He suggested that if we could do away with imprisonment for non-payment of fines, we could reduce the prison population by 50 per cent.

I intended to include in that observation a great deal more use of the Probation Act.

The hon. Member's statement was, however, that if we did away with imprisonment for non-payment of fines we could reduce the prison population by 50 per cent. I have had taken Out the daily average population of prisons for 1931. These are not figures of receptions, but of the actual daily average population. The unconvicted persons number 1527; the convicted, in default of payment of fines, to whom the hon. Member was referring, number 323. That is a total of 1,850. All other prisoners amount to 9,034, giving a total of 10,884 persons in prison on a daily average. Those convicted for the nonpayment of fines number 323. If, therefore, we had to abolish them, we would be reducing the prison population not by 50 per cent., but by not more than 3 per cent.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford spoke of discouraging short sentences for young persons and he asked whether the Home Office could send out a circular to magistrates' courts throughout the country. This as he knows, is a very old question, and one which came before me the last time I was at the Home Office. It is a very great cause of complaint, and I hope that the magistrates throughout the country will take some notice of what has been said in this Debate. I will certainly promise my hon. and gallant Friend to look into this matter again, and to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give re-consideration to the whole matter in the hope that it may be possible to take action in the direction desired. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend although he did not say it in the same language, that the dread of prison is the greatest when one has never been inside a prison. I think that I have dealt with most of the problems that have been put to me—

Observation centres.

I dealt with observation centres in connection with Wormwood Scrubs, but if there are any other definite points in regard to them with which I have not dealt, I will give my hon. Friend the information if he will write to me. I thank the Committee for the attention that they have given to this problem, which is an intensely interesting one and I am sure that we have been helped very materially as a result of this Debate.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.