Annex
Supplementary Note by Sir David Ramsbotham
GCB CBE
THE REVIEW OF HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS
On the day in question I genuinely did not hear Q 136 as
drafted. Had I done so I would have answered as follows:
When the Inspectorate, in its present form, was introduced
in 1981, there were less than 120 prisons, containing approximately
40,000 prisoners, whose conditions and treatment it is HM Chief
Inspector of Prison's responsibility to monitor, and on which
to report. Today there are 139 prisons, and rising and, in addition,
the Inspectorate is responsible for inspecting the four prisons
in Northern Ireland, the three Immigration Service Detention Centres,
the prisons in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the
prisons in the seven Overseas Dependent Territories, with a total
prisoner population of nearer 70,000, including the 65,000 plus
in England and Wales. Furthermore prisons are more complex establishments
since 1981, due to the programmes that have been introduced into
them, and the number of types of prisoner that they contain. This
has meant that, while we can complete an inspection of an average
sized establishment in a week, we need 10 days or more to complete
an inspection of a larger or high security prison, which eats
into the number of available inspection days in any year.
When I took over the post, I inherited a presumption, introduced
by my predecessor but one, Sir James Hennessy, which in turn continued
earlier practice, that we would inspect every prison every five
years. It is on this presumption that the Inspectorate bases its
annual programme of announced inspections, which is agreed with
Prison Service Headquarters before publication.
In 1981, the Inspectorate was established with two inspection
teams, each led by a Governor Grade 1, who had governed a Class
1 prison, and each consisting of a Governor Grade 4 and a Grade
7 Prison Service Civil Servant. They carried out 10 inspections
per year, at the rate of one per month with the exception of August
and one other, to allow for leave. This enabled the Inspectorate
to inspect 100 prisons every five years, the remainder being fitted
in when possible. But it takes a month to prepare for, conduct
and write up an inspection, which is a very detailed process.
When I set the presumption against my two teams, quite apart
from the suggestion in the Learmont report that the Inspectorate
should take over responsibility for inspecting prison security,
I was immediately aware that I simply had not got enough to do
the task. To complete the five year cycle was impossible without
a third team, for which I have asked, repeatedly, over the past
two years and more. I told the previous Home Secretary that, without
a third team I could only inspect every 7 years, which was far
too long, and an implication that he was not prepared to accept.
Quite apart from that I simply had not got enough money with which
to carry out my task, particularly in the face of an imposed cut
of £75,000 for 1997-98, a year in which the numbers of prisons,
and prisoners, was increasing, and I was to take over the costs
of publishing my reports from the Prison Service. I was not given
the funds for which I asked, and have to admit to the Committee,
as I have done to the Home Secretary, that I have overspent by
the amount that I said that I needed, in order to complete a programme
which I have to admit has involved us in a great deal of work,
but has not met the target of 30 programmed inspections in the
year because I simply do not have sufficient staff with which
to do so. All this has been explained at great length to the review
team, which has accompanied us on inspections.
The problem is, of course, complicated, by the inclusion
of unannounced, and therefore unprogrammed—as far as the
Prison Service is concerned—inspections, which do not last
as long, nor require the full team of specialist inspectors—medical,
nursing, education, buildings, farms and gardens. I must admit
to being in favour of these, because, in the interests of conditions
and treatment of prisoners, I am more likely to see what they
actually are. After the Home Secretary had agreed the protocol
which sees my reports published more quickly, I now carry out
follow-up inspections to check on the implementation of our recommendations,
thus ensuring that progress is maintained. Obviously these are
more difficult to carry out if I have insufficient staff.
Further, having appreciated that the Inspectorate is able
to compare conditions and treatment of prisoners, in all prisons
of the same type throughout the country, we are able to contribute
to the drive for consistency if we publish collective conclusions
and recommendations on issues that affect the operation of the
Prison Service as a whole. The first thematic report I published
was a discussion document Patient or Prisoner?, in November
1996, advocating that the NHS should assume responsibility for
Prison Service Healthcare, thus bringing sentenced prisoners in
line with the remainder of the United Kingdom. I was motivated
to this view by the plight of Mentally Disordered Offenders particularly.
This was followed by Women in Prison in July 1997 and Young
Prisoners in November 1997. Currently, as I have briefed the
Committee already, I am embarked on studies of the treatment of
life sentence prisoners and suicide awareness procedures, the
latter at the request of, and both in full co-operation with,
the Director General.
The reaction to these has been very positive, and I am advised
that they have contributed to the developments in the treatment
of these categories of prisoner which would not have resulted
from prison inspection reports alone. They are not new in the
life of the Inspectorate, my predecessor publishing a report on
suicide awareness in 1990 for example, but our programme of thematic
reviews is entirely in line with current practice in the Inspectorate
of Probation, being written into their terms of reference.
I hope that I have been able to explain why I hope for three
things, in particular, to arise from the Prison Inspectorate review:
1. Confirmation that our programme is to be built around
a five yearly programme of announced inspections of every establishment
for which we are responsible.
2. Provision of funds and personnel for a third inspection
team, with supporting administrative and clerical support, to
enable this programme to be completed, allowing a programme of
unannounced and follow-up inspections to be carried out as well.
3. Official recognition of the requirement to conduct
up to two thematic reviews per year, of issues affecting the treatment
and conditions of prisoners, subjects to be agreed with Ministers
and the Director General.
Sir David Ramsbotham
25 March 1998
|
