Annex D
Note by Mr Richard Tilt, Director General,
HM Prison Service
LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO
ALTERNATIVES TO
PRISON SENTENCES
When HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David
Ramsbotham, gave evidence on 10 March at the Committee's inquiry
into alternatives to prison sentences* he made a number of statements
about the current state of the Prison Service in England and Wales.
The Prison Service feels that it is proper to respond to a number
of the assertions that Sir David made, and to provide the context
to a number of the other issues that he raised. I should be grateful
if the letter could form part of the inquiry's written evidence.
See HC (1997-98) 615-i
Overcrowding and Regimes
In his evidence, the Chief Inspector stated
that overcrowding meant that the Prison Service did not have the
activities to occupy prisoners during the day, and said that he
had advised the Prison Service that it must build in the necessary
infrastructure and support to underpin new prison places.
The Prison Service accepts the need to build
in infrastructure and support to back up new accommodation and
recent bids for additional resources have incorporated provision
for ancillary costs of this nature. However, providing additional
prisoner places must take priority and, in some instances, there
will be a time-lag before ancillaries are in place to provide
necessary support to new prison places.
Resources
The Chief Inspector also commented upon the
resources available to the Prison Service, stating that until
the Prison Service goes back to 1991 White Paper Custody Care
and Justice priorities and costs them, it would always be behind
the planning curve; always asking for extra money to plug the
gaps. He also commented that it had been unfortunate that so much
money had been spent on security rather than activities with prisoners.
At the request of the Home Secretary, the Prison
Service undertook an audit of resources last summer. The Prison
Service is also, of course, taking part in the Government's Comprehensive
Spending Review. These major pieces of work will inform future
expenditure plans.
Turning to the Chief Inspector's comment on
expenditure on security, most of the money which has been spent
on upgrading security in the dispersal and category A estate in
recent years was provided by the Treasury to implement the recommendations
of the Woodcock and Learmont Reports. It was allocated for very
specific purposes. If it had not been spent on security it could
not have been spent on anything else.
Population Management
Commenting upon management of the prison population,
the Chief Inspector stated that "The hand-to-mouth putting
people where beds are type of approach" negated a lot of
the good work which should be done to tackle re-offending.
The rise in the prison population has made allocation
more difficult. But, the Prison Service continues to strive to
ensure that the allocation of prisoners is undertaken in a managed
and coordinated way. A recent analysis shows that the Prison Service
is currently holding 60 per cent of adult males in their home
areas despite all the population pressures.
Lifer Management
Turning to the issue of managing life sentence
prisoners, the Chief Inspector stated that there was no proper
structured programme for moving lifer prisoners on through the
system when they achieve targets. He also states that the lack
of a structured programme of activities within the Prison Service
meant that prisoners were not able to meet their parole or tariff
date.
The implication of this statement is that some
prisoners are being held in prison for longer than necessary because
of a lack of a structured programme. This statement needs to be
substantiated.
Women Prisoners
The Chief Inspector also commented upon women
prisoners, and stated that the programme for looking after women
in prison was not good enough because the Prison Service was not
designed for dealing with such prisoners.
The Prison Service is aware of the Chief Inspector's
concerns, and is currently developing a tranche of work in response
to the issues raised in the Chief Inspector's thematic review
of Women in Prison. This includes specific work on programme development
and the development of offending behaviour programmes specifically
designed for this group of prisoners.
Frequent Transfers
The Chief Inspector quoted an example of one
prisoner who he said had been detained in 57 prisons in the last
six years, and was due to be released from a segregation unit
into the community.
It is very unusual for a prisoner to be moved
as often as is suggested here. It is even more unusual for a prisoner
to be released straight from a segregation unit. The recent introduction
of the system of Close Supervision Centres should help to manage
severely disruptive prisoners in a more effective way. It is also
intended over time to replace the Continuous Assessment Scheme
(CAS).
Drugs
The Chief Inspector made a number of comments
concerning the problems of drugs in prisons. In particular, he
made the following points: drug testing is leading to a greater
use of opiates than cannabis; opiates were much easier to get
in to prisons and "drug barons" could make more money
from them than cannabis; drug barons dominated the life of a prison
in a way which was totally unacceptable and staff were under intimidation
from the whole of the drug scene. There was a need for a more
aggressive implementation of current measures together with new
measures in order to have an impact on the flow of drugs into
prison; there were 10 drug barons in each prison; greater use
should be made of passive drug dogs in every prison; prison staff
claimed that they did not know who the drug dealers were, something
the Chief Inspector did not believe; the Prison Service was not
adopting an aggressive approach to the problem of drug abuse;
and establishments were waiting for a new drugs strategy to be
produced by the Prison Service.
The mandatory drug testing data, and academic
research into the impact of mandatory drug testing, both indicate
a fall in the use of cannabis. At the same time there is no evidence
of an upward trend in the use of opiates. The emerging findings
do not support the view that there is widespread switching from
cannabis to heroin. The level of positive drug testing, captured
by the mandatory drug testing key performance indicator—has
fallen throughout 1997-98.
The Prison Service has a range of measures in
place which are designed to counter the problems caused by drugs
in prison and new measures are currently being developed in the
pipeline. The Prison Service is aware of the potential of staff
involvement and is vigilant to counter the threat. In particular,
there is no evidence to support the Chief Inspector's statement
that there are 10 drug barons in each prison, and the Chief Inspector
has since retracted the claim.
The Prison Service is well aware of the effectiveness
of passive drug dogs in reducing the supply of drugs into prison.
Some 26 passive dogs are presently deployed, with a number of
prisons borrowing from nearby establishments. 168 active dogs,
which can be used to search areas but not people, are also in
place. The numbers continue to grow.
The Prison Service drug strategy seeks to reduce
the supply of drugs. This necessarily involves action to identify
and tackle drug dealers.
A review of the Prison Service's drug strategy
is nearing completion. We hope to publish it in May. The revised
strategy will build on the achievements of the Service in the
last few years. The Service has not stood still in this area.
Any suggestion of inertia in the run up to the new strategy is
misleading and underestimates the Prison Service's success. The
revised drug strategy will provide a new focus on the issue of
drug misuse, highlighting the use of good intelligence to support
efforts, including a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) covering the sharing of intelligence
in joint operations.
Director of Regimes
Commenting upon the recent appointment of the
Director of Regimes, the Chief Inspector stated that the Director
of Regimes might "lay down whatever policy he likes but unless
he has got the money to make certain that everyone is delivering
what he wants done then it will not happen."
There is no evidence to support this assertion.
On the contrary, the Director of Regimes is a member of the Prisons
Board and reports directly to the Director General. He works closely
with the Operational Directors to ensure that policy formulation
is informed by the operational line and that regime policy is
delivered. In cases of disagreement, and to ensure the right balance
between Regimes and Security, the Deputy Director General is to
chair a sub-committee of the Prisons Board at which disagreements
can be resolved.
Early signs are promising. The Operational Directors
have already found £3 million for the piloting of improved
regimes at two juvenile, two young offender and two female establishments
and the Director of Regimes and his staff have already brought
together Governors from these three groups for productive developmental
work. Finally, the Prison Service Business Plan for 1998-99, to
which the whole Prisons Board are committed, will reflect a major
re-emphasis on regimes.
The Chief Inspector also said that there was
significant inconsistency in the treatment and conditions of prisoners
detained in similar types of prisons.
The Prison Service Review, which reported last
November, committed the Service to strengthening the arrangements
for developing appropriate regimes for various groups within the
prisoner population. Under the new Director of Regimes considerable
work is underway to develop new regime standards for women, young
offenders, juveniles and adult males.
Contract Prisons/Service Level Agreements
The Chief Inspector also made a number of statements
about contract prisons and Service Level Agreements, including:
that the Prison Service originally objected to the Manchester
in-house market testing bid; that from September 1996, Manchester
has been run on "what is called a Service Level Agreement";
that contract prisons cost 11-15 per cent less than their equivalent
in the public sector: and the Service Level Agreement imposes
a level of discipline on the public sector prisons which has been
missing up to now.
The Prison Service did not object to the Manchester
in-house market testing bid, and was involved in discussions with
Ministers at the time about the selection criteria. Manchester
has been run according to a Service Level Agreement (SLA) since
January 1994, not since September 1996, as the Chief Inspector
states; the original SLA was revised in September 1996. The cost
differential that the Chief Inspector quoted for contract prisons
is incorrect. A recent Home Office study, using 1996-97 data,
suggested that the cost gap between private and public sector
prisons was 8-15 per cent. Finally, it is misleading to suggest
that only those prisons which operate to a Service Level Agreement
can be run in a disciplined way.
Healthcare
The Chief Inspector told the Committee that
the standard of nursing in prisons was not up to the standard
found in the NHS hospitals and said that the Prison Service was
duplicating a lot of work by having huge organisations in prison
when all that was required was a nurse practitioner to run a minor
injuries unit each morning and a doctor who comes in and oversees
this clinic.
This statement needs to be clarified or expanded.
The standard of nursing can only be judged by comparing like with
like. Healthcare Centres within prisons are not huge organisations.
The varied needs of the prison population could not be met by
the part-time attendance of a nurse practitioner.
Additionally, commenting upon the treatment
of mentally disordered offenders, the Chief Inspector stated that
the condition of prisoners returned from Broadmoor, Ashworth and
Rampton deteriorated.
Although it is true that prisoners who are mentally
ill should be treated in hospital and not detained in prison,
the Prison Service has a range of facilities which are available
for the management of disruptive prisoners with personality disorders.
The recently established system of close supervision centres should
provide a valuable addition.
Suicide Awareness
The Chief Inspector also spoke about the Prison
Service's suicide awareness strategy. He commented that suicide
prevention procedures were fine "in theory", but that
procedures were not being exercised and that no-one was accountable
for the suicide prevention procedures. He also claimed that there
had been some "disgraceful examples of insensitive handling
of relatives" by the Prison Service.
The Prison Service, and individual staff in
establishments, are committed to doing everything possible to
reduce the incidence of suicides in prisons. The application of
suicide prevention procedures is considered as part of the regular
audit of establishments. The accountability trail from audit reports
is well established.
The Prison Service recognises that the treatment
of relatives of prisoners who die in custody is an area where
it does not always get it right. A Prison Service Order will shortly
be issued, setting out guidance and good practice in dealing with
bereaved relatives and draws heavily on families' individual experiences
and comments from groups such as Inquest and the Samaritans.
The Chief Inspector also suggested that prisons
should not compare their suicide figures to figures in the community
because Prison Service figures are meant to monitor what is happening
in a supervised environment where, if staff were doing their job,
they should have a much better chance of preventing prisoners
committing suicide.
The Prison Service has a duty of care and accepts
that improvements need to be made in the application of its policy
on caring for the suicidal. However, it is not self-evident to
argue that if all possible checks and balances were in place the
prison population could be expected to be less at risk than the
external population. The prison population contains significant
groups of prisoners who are vulnerable and at heightened risk
of suicidal behaviour. Comparisons with the oustside community
rates must be treated with great caution. Despite prison staff's
best efforts some determined prisoners do not disclose their feelings
or intentions to staff and so not all suicides are preventable.
The Service still remains committed to doing everything possible
to reduce the incidence of suicides in prisons.
Race Relations
Finally, on the issue of race relations, the
Chief Inspector agreed that there were still some prison staff
who were associated with "what can only be described as very
right-wing causes".
The Prison Service does investigate any allegations,
and treat any evidence, of inappropriate behaviour by staff very
seriously.
R R Tilt
30 April 1998
Response by Sir David Ramsbotham GCB,
CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE
Thank you very much for your letter of 6 May
1998. I know that the Director General wished to make some comments
on my evidence, and was aware that the Home Secretary had indicated
that he might do so. I watched this process with some interest
because of course it is my job to report on what I find, and not
what people would like me to find, and also to report on conditions
as they are, not on conditions that it is hoped might obtain,
when various plans, of which I may not be aware, have been implemented.
This is of course why there are independent Inspectorates, who
are expected to report objectively and that is what I have tried
to do. I am sure, therefore, that the Committee would not wish
me to be involved in a detailed rebuttal or comment on each of
the points made by the Director General because they are his comments
on my observations and not my observation of what I find as I
go around the prisons, on which I report, and which I discussed
with the Committee.
However, there is no question of my having retracted
the suggestion about there being 10 drug barons in each prison.
I acknowledged to the Director General that it was unfortuante
that the figure that I used was instantly seized upon by the media,
which was my fault. But I also explained both to the Home Secretary
and to the Director General that my own inspector told me that
I was wrong, in that there were at least 20 in some of the bigger
prisons. What I intended to indicate to the Committee, which I
in no way have retracted as the Director General knows, was that
these barons or dealers exist in every prison, and are the cause
of the misery that I have described. I cannot posisbly evaluate
exactly how many there are and, therefore, it is perhaps invidious
to quibble over whether 10 is or is not the correct assessment.
It my fault for attempting to estimate, but I do so on the evidence
that I had picked up, and it was not an empty statement.
The one other comment that I would wish to make
is on his statement about lifer management. The statement will
be fully substantiated when, later in the year, I publish my Thematic
Review on the current lifer system, which I am conducting jointly
with the Probation Service. The facts that a large percentage
of all lifers are currently passing their tariff or parole dates
before release, and that many are unable to get places on offending
behaviour courses which are the required currency of the Parole
Board before authorising parole, confirm that the problem exists.
Substantiation of the extent of that problem will be published
later in the year. Otherwise I note the Director General's comments,
which I take to be endorsement of the concernsthat I raised, and
acknowledgement that the Prison Service is actively trying to
do something about them. That would say to me that the Inspectorate
is doing its job of trying to help to improve the operational
efficiency of the Prison Service.
Sir David Ramsbotham
15May 1998
* See HC (1997-98) 615-i
| 
