APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by the Board of Visitors,
HMP Maghaberry
1. Board of Visitors
At present there are 18 members, appointed by
the Secretary of State, who each serve for a period not exceeding
12 years, subject to reappointment of every 3 years. General Duties
are outlined in section 24 of Prisoners and Young Offenders Centre
Rules (N.I.) 1995. Briefly, the Board has free access at any time
to all parts of the prison, and to all prisoners and has the duty
to satisfy itself on matters relating to the welfare of prisoners.
The Board enjoys good relationships with prison staff and prison
officers. This has resulted in a body of people with a unique
insight and knowledge of the prison acquired over a long period
of time. It is a voluntary commitment involving integrity on the
part of each member and courage in the face of the recent terrorist
threats to home and personal safety. Each year the Board produces
an Annual Report covering all aspects of Prison Life. We would
note at this stage that all the issues raised by the Steele Review
in Appendix B are matters familiar to the Board and raised specifically
and forcibly in "The Important Matters Arising" section
of our 2002-03 Report, prepared before the current crisis. The
Steele Review was given copies of this document, and copies are
available on request.
A Board of Visitors is a valuable resource,
should not be sidelined and we believe is complementary and necessary
to the successful operation of an Ombudsman function. Under a
succession of Governors and Director Generals the Board has, in
the main, enjoyed constructive relationships and support. We believe
our interest in the subject of this inquiry to be "substantial".
2. The Board does not believe that it falls
within its remit to comment on the reasons behind the dramatic
change of policy, following the Steele Report, which have led
to the introduction of separate wings for paramilitary prisoners.
Board Members were fully aware of the day to day problems of the
dirty protest, the roof protests and the subsequent disciplinary
actions taken by the Prison Management. The full complexity of
the problem and the difficulty of the decision is appreciated
but our concern is the welfare and conditions of all those whom
the courts have sentenced to a period in custody. We wish to see
that they all have equal opportunities to avail themselves of
the facilities in the prison. Steele expressed the hope that separation
outside wings, eg in education, could be avoided otherwise the
regime for separated prisoners could be affected. The Review recommended
the regular delivery of a comprehensive regime and expressed the
hope that resources be made available. The Board of Visitors endorses
this important recommendation.
3. We note that the Steele Review recommended
separation on the grounds of safety of prisoners and staff and
that the decision was taken at government level. The Steele Review
did not spell out how separation should be arranged: this was
left to the Prison Service and the Prison Governor to implement.
We would express our concern at the wording of the Steele Review's
conclusion that separation of paramilitary prisoners was necessary
on "the basis that the Government will never again concede
complete control of the wings to the prisoners as happened
at the Maze". This fear that a Maze type situation will develop
is prevalent throughout the prison and the sense of déjá
vu is affecting the morale of prison officers throughout the
establishment. We do not wish to see any element of control conceded
to the prisoners, since experience has shown that this makes for
an environment unsafe for prisoners and staff alike.
4. The Steele Report did not give any guidance
on the criteria for separation of prisoners. The Board considers
this as one of the most pressing issues to be decided upon and
finds it surprising that the provision of separated accommodation
was commenced before there were criteria in place. Criteria must
be drawn up, published, strictly controlled by the prison authorities
and not a matter depending on whether a group of inmates accepts
a prisoner or not. This is the point where control is first handed
over to the prisoners if they are allowed to choose their own
"team". It is also hard to see how it was possible to
designate two houses (Bush and Roe), each housing around 100 prisoners,
as separated accommodation without first establishing criteria
to determine how many prisoners may be involved in moving to the
paramilitary wings. Whilst these two modern houses clearly provide
the best opportunity for surveillance of prisoners by staff, their
designation as paramilitary wings is causing resentment among
other conforming prisoners who are now experiencing over-crowded
conditions in the older accommodation. We would stress that Appendix
B of Steele Report states that "the cells in Maghaberry prison
are unsuitable for holding two prisoners".
5. The Board supports the determination
expressed by management that systems being established now must
not be interfered with by outside forces on the grounds of expediency.
From past experience change will be in the face of manipulation,
propaganda, threat and disruption. The Board considers that these
are very early days for either assessment of the safety implications
of the decision or an inquiry.
The situation is evolving on a daily basis and
poses many problems and decisions requiring unparalleled and unprecedented
management skills. The prison was described by HM Chief Inspector
of prisons as the most "complex and diverse prison establish
establishment in the UK". The problems are already manifesting
themselves, but also the opportunities. Discussions with senior
governors are encouraging on the basis that there is a determination
that paramilitary prisoners will be isolated and their influence
curtailed and that integrated prison life will be developed and
hopefully properly resourced to deliver programmes and constructive
regimes.
6. One of the problems is the emergence
of a vacuum and the danger of a very unsettled period for staff
and prisoners. Immediate and continuing effort is needed to send
signals that regimes, programmes and improvements are uppermost
in the management's priorities in spite of staffing difficulties
and the uncertain atmosphere that prevails in the prison. Board
Members are continually being met with a litany of complaints,
demoralised staff, deteriorating conditions in the houses and
a prison population that is watching developments very carefully
and feeling that, as one commented, "the whole prison is
finished" and that their patience will not last forever.
Currently it has to be accepted that there has been a serious
impact on regimes for all prisoners, that some schemes have been
thrown into chaos and drugs testing, for example, has ground to
a halt. At the time of writing education is at a standstill, workshops
are not operating, the visits area is being revamped, Progressive
Regime and Earned Privileges Scheme has ground to a halt and the
impressive Resettlement scheme thrown into disarray.
7. The Board believes the present situation
provides an opportunity for lateral thinking. An immediate review
of corporate governance and risk management arrangements for the
Prison Service should be undertaken. Consideration should be given
to the introduction of independent monitoring and accountability
structures. The Board strongly urges a review of corporate governance
and risk management arrangements for the Prison Service, in line
with best practice in other organisations. In particular, the
establishment of a Management Board for HMP Maghaberry with a
majority non-executive component should be given serious consideration.
We believe this will be necessary in order that the service will
have any chance of coping with the potentially overpowering forces
ranged against it. A new beginning based on such a change would
enable the whole situation to be re-energised in a context of
much clearer accountability and responsibility.
8. The Board is in complete agreement with
the issues raised in Appendix B with the exception of the suggestion
that greater efficiency in regime delivery might be achieved by
holding sentenced and remand prisoners together. It has always
been best practice to keep these categories apart except in exceptional
circumstances. We particularly highlight the issues of high levels
of sick absence and what appear to be somewhat anachronistic working
practices such as the four-day working week arrangement. These
and other issues of communication, trust and a serious breakdown
of confidence between the POA and PSNI need to be addressed.
9. We do not propose to comment further
in this submission on the matters raised in Appendix B and would
be happy to discuss any of these matters at the inquiry. Most
of the matters raised are familiar to, and have been of concern
to the Board, in some cases for many years and have been commented
upon in our 2002-03 Annual Report. We hope the matters raised
in the submission will be helpful and help focus the discussion
at our meeting.
23 October 2003
| 
