Memorandum from the HM Inspectorate of
Prisons
As Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons
I have the statutory duty to inspect all Prison Service establishments
in England and Wales and to report on conditions in prisons and
the treatment of prisoners. Since 1999, I have also had statutory
responsibility for inspecting all Immigration Removal Centres.
By arrangement, I also inspect prisons in Northern Ireland, the
Isle of Man and Channel Islands, and the Secure Holding Centres
where immigrants may be detained at ports and airports. In 2003,
I was also asked to provide for regular independent inspections
of the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) at Colchester.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP)
has developed a methodology and criteria for inspecting prisons
and other places of detention. They are based in part on international
human rights standards, as set out in various international instruments.
They define a "healthy" custodial environment, a definition
based upon the World Health Organisation's definition of a healthy
prison. There are four tests for such an environment: detainees
should be safe, treated with respect for their human dignity,
able to engage in purposeful activity, and prepared for release
or resettlement. In support of those tests, HMIP has published
a document called Expectations, which sets out the detailed
criteria for inspecting all aspects of custodial life.
This submission relates primarily to the duty
of care for those service personnel who are held in detention,
based upon our work with the MCTC over the last three years.
The MCTC is the only remaining corrective training
centre and provides for detainees from all three services. It
is staffed on a tri-service basis, with the majority being from
the army and members of the specialist Military Provost Staff
Corps.
Following the suicides of two servicemen detained
at MCTC in 1999 and 2000, HMIP was asked to assist in a review
of arrangements in the establishment, with a particular focus
on the duty of care and the support provided to those detainees
identified as especially vulnerable. This review, led by Colonel
(now Brigadier) Copeland was completed in November 2001 and reported
shortly afterwards to the Provost Marshal (Army) and the Adjutant
General who have command responsibility for MCTC. It made recommendations
for change and led to the development of new procedures and methods
for exercising the duty of care: seeking to identify and support
those who are vulnerable.
Since then, HMIP has assisted in the Provost
Marshal's annual inspection of MCTC in 2002 and 2003, providing
advice based upon experience and best practice in other custodial
settings. It has now been agreed with the Ministry of Defence
that we will carry out our own independent inspection of the Centre
every three years. The first of these inspections will take place
in the week commencing 14 June 2004, and I aim to publish my report
and recommendations by October 2004.
Our work so far has focused on advising on the
management of vulnerability and the prevention of self-harm. Arrangements
for this have greatly improved over the last two years and now
follow the best practice in HM Prison Service. We are, however.
concerned that these procedures are confined to MCTC and do not
extend to other service custodial settings such as guardrooms
and courts martial hearing centres.
The coming full inspection will examine the
discharge by MCTC of its duty of care to its population as a whole
in more detail than has hitherto been possible. Our earlier experience,
however, indicates that the centre benefits from much higher staff-detainee
ratio than prevails in HM Prison Service settings. Similarly,
it suggests that the level of supervision, and awareness of individual
problems, appears to be much greater than that indicated by Surrey
Police in their recent report on events at Deepcut. This will
become clearer once our full inspection has taken place.
Specific issues arise in relation to the treatment
of service personnel under the age of 18, who are children in
both domestic and international law, and therefore subject to
particular safeguards. Again, I can only comment directly on the
situation with regard to the MCTC, but similar issues clearly
arise in relation to young service personnel more generally.
MCTC can and does hold detainees aged 17, and
even 16, and can on occasion receive service dependants aged under
18. In addition to our overall work on the duty of care towards
all those at MCTC, HMIP has raised the need for child protection
procedures to be developed in association with Essex Area Child
Protection Committee, and we understand that discussions are under
way to put these in place.
MCTC, as a custodial centre, differs significantly
from other army training settings. The triennial joint inspection
of children's safeguards in which we are one of the participating
inspectorates will be reporting in September 2005 on arrangements
for the safeguarding of children in all settings where they live
away from home. The majority of these—children's homes,
Young Offender Institutions, and now the MCTC—are subject
to regular inspection. However, a number are not, ranging from
language schools to the armed services.
There are significant numbers of young people
aged 16 and 17 training in the armed services. The joint inspectorates
will shortly be determining the issues raised for their review
in relation to this group and others not currently subject to
independent inspection. Should your Committee wish to have a view
from the inspectorate with lead responsibility in this area, in
order to follow up matters relating to the duty of care towards
under-18 service personnel who are not in custody, you may wish
to contact the Children's Rights Director.
April 2004
| 
