Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 253)
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER 2003
MR PETER
RUSSELL
Q240 Chairman: Okay. A few random
questions now, the new blocks which you were going to convert
for paramilitary prisoners do they have 100 cells?
Mr Russell: 96.
Q241 Chairman: 96. Is that amount
of provision justified? It does not seem to be according to the
number of paramilitaries you told us about.
Mr Russell: It is necessary to
have the whole block empty in order to undertake the work so it
is sensible to put provision in for the whole block. If we do
not need the whole block for one faction we can use the other
half for somebody else.
Q242 Chairman: Perhaps in the same
block you will have paramilitaries and ordinaries.
Mr Russell: That is a possibility.
Q243 Chairman: Okay. Again you have
touched on this prisoner contact and the need to alter the arrangements
relating to discipline, can you give us more details of those
changes you propose to make?
Mr Russell: We are working them
through with lawyers with a view to bringing forward the necessary
legislative changes. I rehearsed it as well as I could remembering
the details the last time round, but it is to do with introducing
stiffer punishments available to the governor and new punishments
available to a properly independent, judicial figure in cases
where the governor thinks something more serious is warranted.
Q244 Chairman: When do you expect
that to be available?
Mr Russell: The Prison Rules can
be amended more readily than primary legislation, we may get the
Prison Rules amended by Christmas on a fair wind, primary legislation
is going to take longer.
Q245 Mr Luke: You note in the memorandum
that work has begun for a Prisons Ombudsman, why are you looking
at a scheme that does not need legislation? How will the administrative
scheme that you are looking at, referred to in your memorandum,
differ from a scheme that would require legislation?
Mr Russell: I do not think that
the scheme itself will differ. I think the Service has been a
bit purist about thinking this could only be done with legislation
if a legislative slot becomes available. I think for England and
Wales, certainly for Scotland, an Ombudsman was introduced there
on a non-statutory basis. That experience would indicate that
it is possible to get going without statute. It is probably good
practice if you decide the thing works and you like it to legislate
for it in due course. What we need to do is to consult about a
creation of the office and how it might work to ensure that there
is a sensible process whereby the Ombudsman kicks in after the
prisons internal processes for considering complaints are exhausted.
I would hope to achieve that without involving our headquarters
very greatly in the casework. I have had experience of such and
I am quite sure we can achieve a reasonable streamline so that
the prisoner is clear at what point the prison had refused him
for the last time and what his next avenue of recourse is and
how it sends the issue on to the Ombudsman. I am confident we
can get a good system but it needs a bit of detailed work on the
process.
Q246 Mr Luke: Will you be drawing
heavily on your previous experience of Ombudsman schemes?
Mr Russell: I try not to foist
my experiences on the Northern Ireland Prison Service because
people can react badly to that. All I will say is there is experience
to be had in Scotland and in England and Wales which we would
want to draw on.
Q247 Mr Beggs: What can you tell
us about the meetings you have held with the PUP, the Irish Republican
Prisoners' Welfare Association and the Ulster Political Research
Group? The meetings constructive and what was the agenda for those
meetings? Have you any further meetings planned with these or
other organisations?
Mr Russell: Yes. I think in each
case one or possibly two, two in most cases, have now taken place.
We think monthly is about right. The agenda is not very structured.
I do not attend myself, my Director of Operations takes these
meetings and they are intended as a channel of communication not
as a negotiating forum. The Steele Report recommended we should
establish such channels of communication. It is controversial
and it is not greatly liked within the Service, governors are
very apprehensive about being involved in such meetings, and you
can well understand why. Controversial as it is we have taken
the Steele Report at face value and said perhaps we are being
too insular, the Prison Service should be outward looking. Come
Christmas or thereabouts we should review how it has worked for
that initial period and see if there are any changes we might
want to make in the establishment of these meetings thereafter.
Mr Beggs: Thank you.
Q248 Mr Luke: Concerns have been
raised about the retention of asylum seekers within the Prison
Service in Northern Ireland. Do you understand these concerns?
I believe there are currently seven asylum seekers within Maghaberry
at the moment does the management of these cause concerns and
practical problems for you? We talked about your new wings and
that part of the block might be for paramilitaries, can you envisage
a situation where there are asylum seekers and paramilitaries
in the same block?
Mr Russell: Not in the same area,
no. Both in England and Wales and in Scotland there are immigration
detention centres provided and the number of immigration detainees
in prison must be down to a very, very small number. I think the
most that Scotland offer is that if somebody proves to be wholly
uncontrollable they could be referred to prison. That is a big
change from three years ago where there would be perhaps 50 detainees
held in Greenock Prison. Northern Ireland is unique within the
United Kingdom in terms of the Prison Service being the main place
for holding detainees. They do of course have the option to go
to a detention centre in Scotland or England and Wales. It is
those who opt to say in Northern Ireland who then find themselves
in prison. I would rather not be holding immigration detainees
but it is a matter for the Home Office, it is their responsibility.
The numbers in Northern Ireland are very small. I am sure they
have looked at the viability of having a separate detention centre
and concluded that it would not be viable and that those detained
have the option to go to Great Britain. There is nothing special
about the current arrangements but it is quite possible that these
will change, they have changed within the last three or four years
in that they used to be held in Magilligan Prison, currently they
are held at Maghaberry but that need not last for all time, we
might look at alternatives.
Q249 Mr Luke: What is the age range
of the people that you have?
Mr Russell: Ours are all adults
unless it is a mother and small baby, which can happen, but we
do not have any children.
Q250 Mr Luke: Do they enjoy a separate
regime or do they participate in the current regime?
Mr Russell: They are held in the
same part of the prison as female prisoners are currently held
so to that degree it is separate currently. That may not be able
to last for all time.
Q251 Mr Bailey: Your memorandum appears
to suggest that a separated regime might be extended beyond to
other prisons, is that the case?
Mr Russell: No. I hope we did
not convey that impression, if we did it is not intended.
Q252 Mr Bailey: That is in conflict
with the discussion we had with the Steele panel.
Mr Russell: It is no part of our
planning that we should be using Magilligan for this purpose.
Q253 Chairman: Gentlemen I know you
have to go and catch a plane, thank you for your help. The Committee
is looking forward to our visit to the Maghaberry and elsewhere
next week.
Mr Russell: You will be very welcome.
Chairman: We look forward to seeing the
situation on the ground and talking to the people who are going
to be implementing your policy. The Committee is adjourned.
| 
