Examination of witnesses (Questions 360
- 379)
MONDAY 27 JULY 1998
MRS BREIDGE
GADD, MR
OLIVER BRANNIGAN
and MR BRENDAN
FULTON
360. In their evidence to us, NIACRO explained
in their memorandum they had discovered a significant number of
mentally disturbed persons within prison, and they suggested there
should be and there was scope for the development of a small,
secure unit for mentally disturbed offenders. Do you have any
comment to make on that recommendation?
(Mrs Gadd) Yes. For some years now there has been
an intergovernmental working party looking at this issue. The
ideal situation would be that perhaps some sort of small hostel,
where the lead came from the medical and health services, should
be available to those people whose primary problem is not in a
sense criminality but psychiatric problems, and we would be very
supportive of that idea. Again, I think it is resources more than
lack of commitment that is stopping that happening.
(Mr Brannigan) I think this problem is recognised
at the pre-custody stage and this working party is looking now
at the people appearing through the courts and ending up in prison,
and if a broader vision is taken of the situation they may not
do so. I think that is where a lot of the work has to be done,
prior to getting to prisons. Once they are in prison, then it
takes on a different problem of greater significance.
361. From your experience or knowledge of
the working party, could you indicate how many prisoners we would
be talking about?
(Mr Fulton) I do not think we could give a figure
at this point, but we could add some afterwards to the Committee
if that was helpful.
Mr Browne: Thank you
very much.
Mr Hesford
362. Good morning. Just one introductory
question: we visited Hydebank and at least two of the prison officers
I spoke to indicated a potential problem in that there seemed
to be a prevalence of very short-term sentences given to young
offenders in Northern Ireland over and above my experience of
the UK mainland. What the prison officers were saying to me was
that it was just impossible to work with them, to do anything
with them, because they are out before you can do anything. Do
you have any comment about (a) the prevalence of short sentences
and (b) the effect of short sentences?
(Mrs Gadd) We would be concerned with any view
which was that if prisons could keep them longer they would do
a better job, because I do not think there is much evidence around
to support that view. I think also, if one looks at sentencing
practice in Northern Ireland with the, in a sense, third of the
young male offenders who commit two-thirds of the crime, the courts
tend sometimes to operate on a circular tariff because of frustration.
363. What do you mean "circular tariff"?
(Mrs Gadd) Using perhaps a short prison service
and then the next time the guy is in court, as he invariably is,
perhaps a fine or community service or probation, because these
are frequent offenders. There is a group of frequent offenders.
So, in a sense, the short, sharp shock of the young offenders
centre is an attempt by the courts to do something to stop the
offending pattern. It is difficult because the person is not there
long enough. I would agree with the prison officers on that, there
is not a lot which can be done, but our aim would be, irrespective
of what level of punishment the court gives, to try and target
those young offenders who need help to change the pattern of behaviour,
whether they are in prison or whether they are in the community,
and stick with them and track them in a sense, so they are given
every opportunity to change, and we are working to try and get
them when they are in a young offenders centre even for a short
period of time. The problem is that our resources have to be targeted
at those whom the courts make statutory orders on and that group
of short-term sentences will not come under the new legislation,
so there is a problem about short sentences, but the answer is
not longer sentences. In our view, we would suggest that the court
looks more seriously at making probation or community service
orders instead.
364. I want to turn now to the main topic,
which is structures and resources. Since 1996, the Board's responsibility
for providing social welfare services in prisons and the young
offender centres has been carried out within the terms of a Framework
Agreement between the Board and the Northern Ireland Prison Service.
In practice, has that Agreement worked and has it worked smoothly?
(Mrs Gadd) It has worked in the sense that the
Framework Agreement allows us to be very specific about what we
can offer and at governor level it allows the governor with Mr
Fulton and the probation manager in prison to set out clearly
what he or she wants done in the prison during the 12 months.
The Agreement, however, I would have to say, was a decision of
the minister and the Prison Service, which was not 100 per cent
supported by the Probation Board. The Board did not feel the purchaser-provider
relationship was the right relationship between the Prison Service
and the Probation Board, and made its case to the minister. That
case was not accepted and we have a purchaser-provider relationship
which we are positively working within.
365. In a sense, I am pressing you, is that
a plea for this to be looked at again?
(Mrs Gadd) Yes. The Board has indicated to the
current minister that we would like to look at this arrangement
again, because the new legislation with custody probation orders
introduces into prisons a population that we will have statutory
responsibility for on release. We would be very interested in
giving that group top priority in terms of engaging them—we
cannot force them in prisons, but can engage them—in every
way possible to start change programmes in prisons which will
be continued into the community. We do not see the purchaser-provider
relationship sitting easily with that. We see our relationship
of, in a sense, two statutory bodies each with legislative responsibility
for the same group of people, in a sense a more equal partnership,
and we have signalled that to the minister and to the Prison Service.
366. That is at an administrative level
in a sense, has the agency status of 1996 made any material difference
to the Board's provision of services direct to prisoners and prisoners'
families?
(Mrs Gadd) Over the past few years the Prison
Service—perhaps it is to do with agency status, perhaps
it is to do with other factors, I do not know—has been able
to allocate both resources and interest in the delivery of programmes
in prisons which start to help offenders address their problems.
Clearly, we would like to see that having higher priority, we
would like to see a lot more work being done in prisons, but I
think they are going in the right direction.
367. If you could give two examples, what
kind of programmes are we talking about? Which offender group
are we targeting?
(Mrs Gadd) I will give you an example. We are
very concerned about the wide level of domestic violence in Northern
Ireland, both the increasing reporting of it and the hidden violence
that is in the family which does not come through the criminal
justice system. In the community we have a very intensive domestic
violence programme and we would like to be able to offer that
programme in all the prisons and get to a stage where both prison
officers, probation staff, everyone in prisons, worked to create
a culture where it was acceptable that men in prisons did some
work on looking at violence and addressing violent behaviour.
That would be one example. The other example would be with domestic
lifers, to start a career plan for them from immediately post-sentence,
when they are able to look to the future, and devote energies
so that everything that prisoner did in prison was already part
of a pre-determined plan. That would be two examples. A third
one might be to put more pressure—and very often this has
to be other than statutory pressure—on sex offenders in
prison to undertake programmes, because we only have a 50 per
cent take-up from the prisoners themselves. Again if that culture
of prisons changed so that involvement in preparation for release
was rewarded within a system and people had extra carrot and stick
privileges for working on preparation for resettlement, that could
improve things as well. We look forward to that in the future
perhaps, with the reducing prison population.
368. The social welfare service in prisons
provided by the Board is funded wholly on an annual transfer basis
from the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Does the Board's financial
dependence on the Prison Service in this respect create difficulties?
(Mrs Gadd) Yes, but could I perhaps explain just
a bit about that? When it was decided that the Board would provide
a service to prisoners which the Northern Ireland Prison Service
would pay for, the advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel
was to start off on a fairly crude financial basis, and the £810,000
was the cost in 1996 of the staff in prisons. The actual service
probably costs a lot more because daily we have staff from the
community going into prisons to see prisoners. It is a moot point
whether that is a social welfare service in prisons or it is to
do with their resettlement on release. We have a whole range of
staff in the community who are working in prisons and that is
not costed at the moment, it is quite difficult to cost. So the
£810,000 in a sense was a start. Since then, we have had
the comprehensive spending review, we have had in a sense the
holding off of the PES round, et cetera, so we have got that 1996-97
without change, so it is not really a realistic costing. I would
refer to my earlier comments concerned about the purchaser-provider.
We would have preferred, I suppose, a more equal relationship
where we could say with some confidence what needs to be done
in prison. At the moment we have to respond to the Prison Service's
needs.
369. With the Belfast Agreement and what
everyone hopes for as a change in circumstances, do you have any
slant on where the Probation Service might go in relation to that?
(Mrs Gadd) Our understanding is that we may be
asked to increase the amount of preparation for release programmes
in the Maze Prison. We would obviously be prepared to do that.
That would be the delivery of programmes to prisoners which are
concerned with housing, social welfare benefits, training, employment,
et cetera. Our understanding is that the Probation Board will
not be asked to have any role in the release of terrorist prisoners,
an accelerated release programme.
Mr Robinson
370. Welcome, Mrs Gadd and gentlemen. If
I can follow on with the questions relating to the Framework Agreement
between the Prison Service and the Probation Board, I noticed
that you said the Probation Board were not 100 per cent supportive,
in fact they were in full opposition to it, were they not?
(Mrs Gadd) They would have preferred a different
sort of relationship and they made that view clear to the minister.
The minister felt that the purchaser-provider relationship was
the right one, and the Board accepted that and has worked with
that since.
371. In that context, to what extent should
we read your request to have it reviewed as maintaining your historical
position or being as a result of how you have seen the system
operate in the period it has been operating?
(Mrs Gadd) It is more to do now with the change
in legislative requirements on the Board where we will be involved
in the statutory supervision of prisoners on release. Our experience
of the Framework Agreement has been that it has worked very well
at governor level and allows a clarity of objectives to be set
between each prison and the probation staff at the beginning of
each year, which is reviewed after six months and then after a
year. So in fact it has worked pretty well in practice.
372. You said at governor level, I presume
the prisoner, him or herself, would not have seen any great difference
over this period? They are getting as good a service?
(Mrs Gadd) I think the prisoner would have seen
a closer working together of all the disciplines in prison—probation,
education, psychology and the Prison Service itself and the governors—in
the delivery of programmes and in the sentence planning than previously.
I think collectively perhaps we have improved that over the past
few years. That may be to do with the Framework Agreement, it
may be to do with other factors within the Prison Service, I do
not know.
373. The Framework Agreement operates through
an annual service level agreement.
(Mrs Gadd) Yes.
374. That can often provide different levels
of service in different prisons in this case. Have you found that?
Are some more enthusiastic than others? Does the level vary depending
on the governor concerned?
(Mrs Gadd) It is more dependent on the type of
prisoners in the prison. For example, in Magilligan it is our
strong wish to provide "treatment for sex offenders"
and we found reluctance on the part of some sentenced prisoners
to avail themselves of these programmes, and of course they cannot
be forced to. In Maghaberry we have different sorts of issues—there
is a larger mix population, there is a large domestic lifer population.
It is more to do with the types of prisoners and it may also be
to do with security considerations. Obviously in any prison security
takes precedence over resettlement issues. We would like to do
more but we do not see problems with what we are currently doing.
375. From what you say, it seems to be working
reasonably well.
(Mrs Gadd) Yes.
376. To what extent are you therefore wanting
the minister to review it?
(Mrs Gadd) To the extent that if we changed the
relationship from purchaser-provider it would allow the Probation
Board to have more direct entry to and control of those prisoners
who will be released from prison on statutory supervision orders.
It would also in a sense give the Board more balance in the power
relationship with regard to the types of programmes which are
run in prison and the delivery of those programmes. At the moment
the Framework Agreement sets out that it is the governor who decides
that totally. So, in a sense the Board would like to move from
the purchaser-provider for an ideal relationship, but that is
not to say that we cannot work very well within the current Framework
Agreement. If the current minister decides not to change that,
we will continue to work very positively with the Prison Service
within it.
Mr McGrady
377. Mrs Gadd, gentlemen, the areas of service
that you provide seem to me to be split up in two sections whereby
the predominant provider is (in fact) the Probation Board and
in other areas, the Probation Board and the Prison Service seem
to be joint providers. In general terms, first of all, what is
the principle applied in making such decisions and allocating
such responsibilities?
(Mrs Gadd) Mostly it is the level of competence
and skill of the person delivering the programme and again the
type of programme is determined by the type of prisoner. So, for
example, a programme working with sex offenders, while prison
officers are involved in the delivery of those programmes the
programme is led either by a psychologist or a trained and experienced
probation officer who has had specific training in the delivery
of sex offender programmes. On the other hand, if I could move
to, for example, social skills in the young offenders centre or
the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme in the young offenders centre,
that can be delivered by a prison officer who would be considered
to have the after training, the level of skill necessary, to deliver
it. So it is the complexity of the problem and the level of skill
needed by the deliverer of the programme.
378. What I understand you are saying is
that the type of service, and by whom it is delivered, is dictated
to by the discipline required of the subject matter. In terms,
for instance, of probation where there seems to be a partnership,
in substance abuse or suicide prevention, the two services seem
to have a dual responsibility, if that is my understanding of
it, how does this really work in practice?
(Mr Fulton) If we took the aspect of suicide prevention
as an area where we can add the particular expertise of staff
and the training of staff, which would be helpful or not, an example
would be where we interview those who are received into prison.
If staff felt from that interview or the information they received
there were issues of risk or possible risk, they would actually
use a communications system then both to the medical staff and
to the principal officers within the landings within the prisons
to alert them to the way in which that person should be supervised
or looked after or followed through within that. We find on following
that up, that would be followed up and that principal officers
would take that responsibility very seriously and there would
be a good deal of informal communication which would back that
officer up.
379. I can understand that. Who though,
has the responsibility to ensure that both sets of services, ie.
Probation Board and Prison Service, are being utilised fully within
Prisons?
(Mrs Gadd) The governor in each prison would chair
a multidisciplinary group which looks at what the outcome of the
sentence plans are. What is needed to be done and then the sorts
of programmes which should be run with regard to the delivery
of that. If, for example, we are talking about cognitive programmes,
a specific sort of programme now which appears to be effective
in helping to reduce reoffending, at the stage of deciding the
year's work, the governor would agree within that multidisciplinary
team who is going to lead. If it is the Probation Service, from
then on the Probation Service takes responsibility for setting
up the programme, training people, et cetera. If, however, it
is decided that the prison psychologist leads, then the psychology
service takes the lead. But at the beginning an agreement is made
with the governor at local level who is going to lead in the programme
and thereafter that person or that organisation is responsible
for its delivery.
|
