Conclusions and recommendations
1. While
the Comprehensive Spending Review may provide the financial resources
for the Northern Ireland Prison Service's remedial measures, it
does not provide sufficient capital resources for the substantial
re-design of the prison estate that we believe is required. If
criminal justice is to be devolved, we hope that capital investment
in the prison estate will be a priority of the Northern Ireland
Executive. If not, it will be for the Secretary of State to argue
for an increase in funding for capital investment beyond the period
of the CSR. (Paragraph 22)
2. We commend the
Northern Ireland Prison Service for commissioning the security
reclassification exercise, as we believe it will provide a realistic
basis for the future planning of the prison estate. We are convinced
that any reconfiguration of the prison estate must incorporate
sufficient flexibility to cope with a changing population, but
must reflect need. We agree with Criminal Justice Inspection Northern
Ireland that the security reclassification must be implemented
at the earliest possible date. (Paragraph 28)
3. We were astounded
to learn that fine defaulters comprised approximately 59% of all
receptions of sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland compared
to 2.2% of receptions of sentenced prisoners in England and Wales..
The Minister told us that "it is quite preposterous that
so many fine defaulters occupy places in the Northern Ireland
prison system". We conclude that the imprisonment of fine
defaulters represents a disproportionate demand on the scarce
resources of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The proposal
for the Supervised Activity Order in the draft Criminal Justice
(Northern Ireland) Order 2007 makes a good start with regard to
this issue but we agree with the Minister that there is still
scope for further action. Meanwhile, we recommend that steps be
taken immediately to prevent exploitation by short-sentenced fine
defaulters of the system for their admission and discharge. (Paragraph
37)
4. We conclude that
the very high proportion of remand prisoners (higher than anywhere
else in the UK) represents an additional unjustifiable burden
on the Northern Ireland Prison Service. We recommend that the
Government investigate why the criminal justice process is so
slow in Northern Ireland and identify ways of eliminating delay.
(Paragraph 39)
5. We further conclude
that if the Northern Ireland Prison Service did not have to deal
with a disproportionately high number of remand prisoners and
with fine defaulters, its burden would be significantly lighter.
Given the potentially significant additional burden that will
be imposed on the Northern Ireland Prison Service by the introduction
of indeterminate and extended public protection sentences, we
recommend that removing these needless burdens be a matter of
high priority. (Paragraph 40)
6. We conclude that
the Northern Ireland Prison Service's estate strategy has to be
demand-led, determined by projections of future prison population
and the security categorisation of that population. It must also
build in the flexibility where possible to 'future proof' its
investment in the prison infrastructure. The proposed security
reclassification is expected to have a very significant impact
on the categorisation of the prison population. This must underpin
the estate strategy. (Paragraph 58)
7. We conclude that
the existing prison buildings at Magilligan are inadequate and
that they need to be replaced as a matter of priority. To retain
the good work that is being done at the prison, particularly in
the area of resettlement, we recommend that extensive prison facilities
are rebuilt on the Magilligan site. (Paragraph 59)
8. We recommend that
it should be a priority of the estate strategy that some of the
pressure is taken off HMP Maghaberry, which experts have told
us is one of the most complex and challenging prisons in the United
Kingdom. Whilst there is a case for an additional (fourth) prison,
close enough to Belfast and the courts to house more remand prisoners
and to relieve some of the pressure on Maghaberry, we do not believe
that such a prison should be a substitute for a facility at Magilligan.
(Paragraph 61)
9. In view of the
evidence given to us from the Life Sentence Review Commissioners,
we recommend that there should be adequate facilities for life
and other long-sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland. These
should provide opportunities for the constructive testing of such
prisoners at progressively reduced levels of security prior to
their release. Given the recent court decisions concerning the
provision of treatment programmes for indeterminate sentence prisoners
in England and Wales, and the planned introduction of indeterminate
custodial sentences in Northern Ireland, there must also be adequate
provision of appropriate offender management programmes for such
prisoners. (Paragraph 62)
10. We conclude that
the development of such basic self management skills forms an
important basis for effective resettlement. We do not believe
that prisoners should ever be subject to any overly restrictive
regime unless it can be justified on security grounds. The limitations
of the current women's regime at Hydebank Wood, which largely
occur because of the shared site, have a negative impact on the
women's resettlement. (Paragraph 69)
11. Prisoners in Northern
Ireland deserve the best possible opportunities to rejoin society
on their release as self-sufficient members of the community,
and preparation for employment is a key aspect of that process.
We recommend that the prison service provides a wider range of
vocational training, appropriate to the needs of women prisoners.
(Paragraph 72)
12. Whilst we accept
that these important issues at Hydebank Wood are recognised by
the prison service, we believe that it is of paramount importance
that urgent attention be given to addressing the issues of the
shared visits room, and, even more, the health care centre by
seeking to ensure that whenever possible they are not used at
the same time by women prisoners and male young offenders. We
accept that prison staff have made every effort to make the best
of less than ideal accommodation, and have responded well to specific
difficulties. However, further investment in short term solutions
is not an adequate response to a situation which cannot be allowed
to continue indefinitely. (Paragraph 76)
13. We commend the
prison service, particularly the staff at Hydebank Wood, for their
efforts to provide a dignified, constructive and therapeutic regime
for women prisoners in the face of repeated criticisms. We conclude
that these efforts can only have limited results as long as the
women continue to share a site with young offenders, although
we accept that the land owned by the prison service at Hydebank
Wood site is large enough for separate facilities to be provided
there. (Paragraph 78)
14. We are convinced
that there is a pressing need for a self contained women's prison
facility in Northern Ireland. Some witnesses have suggested that
it might be possible to do this at or adjacent to the Hydebank
Wood estate. We are disappointed that the prison service did not
include the women's needs in its prison estate options appraisal
or appear to give serious consideration to this possibility. We
regard this as a missed opportunity. However we are encouraged
by Mr Goggins' statement that he has asked for a women's strategy
and plans for a women's facility to be developed during 2008.
We recommend that the Minister ensure that the development of
plans and costings for a discrete women's facility, and a timetable
for implementing the plans, are treated as a high priority. (Paragraph
81)
15. The Committee
has seen or heard nothing to lead it to conclude that the human
rights of any prisoner are being infringed but nevertheless feels
that the comments of Mr O'Neill and of Ms Owers must be borne
carefully in mind. (Paragraph 96)
16. Given the history
of the Maze prison, where paramilitary groups took control of
their wings from the prison authorities, and given the more recent
evidence of threats to prison officers, we recognise that a degree
of controlled movement on the separated wings is necessary. However,
we also acknowledge with regret that the maintenance of this regime
has inevitably had a negative impact on the educational and recreational
opportunities available to some of these prisoners as well as
the wider prisoner community. It is an issue which must be kept
under constant review. (Paragraph 99)
17. In his evidence
to the Committee on 21 November, the Minister acknowledged that
it would be desirable to see separation phased out as the political
situation improved but he was quite clear that he did not envisage
an early end to separation. We believe that ending separation
should be a high priority for those responsible for criminal justice
after devolution and we would welcome an early debate on this
issue among Northern Ireland's political representatives. (Paragraph
103)
18. We note that there
are areas of prison healthcare which require improvement. We are
concerned about the delays in effecting the transfer of responsibility
for prison healthcare to the health service. We believe this delay
could create staffing difficulties and confusion over lines of
responsibility. We welcome the transfer and urge the Government
and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that it is completed
in the very near future. (Paragraph 110)
19. Whilst we completely
accept that the safety of the law abiding population must be of
paramount concern, we note that the large number of prisoners
with personality disorders in Northern Ireland prisons presents
a challenge for the prison service, in terms of developing a regime
to manage their behaviour, providing appropriate care and reducing
the risks they pose before and after release. We recommend that
the Government give serious consideration to the arguments for
amending the legislation in order to consider whether the best
interests of such individuals would be served by bringing them
within the scope of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order
1986. Whatever the legislation, there is a pressing need for more
facilities to be provided for the support of those with personality
disorders. We commend the opening of the Reach Unit in HMP Maghaberry
as a good start, but recognise that this must now be further developed.
We support the proposal from the Probation Board and the Prison
Service to provide a hostel to aid the resettlement of prisoners
with personality disorders. (Paragraph 125)
20. We conclude that
the lack of a high security hospital facility in Northern Ireland
places a strain on the prison service. The need for remand prisoners,
including those who are suffering from serious mental illness,
to remain within Northern Ireland means that the prison service
has no option but to accommodate such prisoners even though it
is not equipped to provide appropriate care. We recommend that
the prison service and the health service jointly discuss with
the Scottish Executive and the government of the Republic of Ireland
the possibilities of sharing secure hospital facilities. Before
coming to a conclusion, it should also consider the provision
of a small facility either at HMP Maghaberry or at Hydebank Wood,
which is adjacent to the Knockbracken Healthcare Park. (Paragraph
128)
21. We commend the
examples of good resettlement practice we saw in all of the prison
establishments we visited. We conclude that what is needed now
is a more strategic approach towards matching education, work
and training provision with prisoners' needs, more focus on providing
skills which will enable prisoners to secure employment and a
programme of evaluation to assess which programmes are most effective.
We support the Chief Inspector's recommendation that a personal
officer scheme, or its equivalent, is introduced as a matter of
priority, so as to ensure a better strategic match between resettlement
activities and each prisoner's needs, and to encourage prisoners
to remain committed to their individual resettlement plan. (Paragraph
145)
22. We strongly recommend
that the Northern Ireland Prison Service continues with its drive
to introduce a culture which encourages prison officers to engage
with prisoners to a greater extent and to view their role as one
of facilitating resettlement, rather than solely enforcing security.
(Paragraph 149)
23. We do not believe
that the Northern Ireland Prison Service has a sufficiently clear
strategy on the integration of vulnerable prisoners. There is
no clear statement as to what the policy is on integration of
vulnerable prisoners and we recommend that one is made by the
prison service. We conclude that there is a marked difference
between the Northern Ireland Prison Service approach and those
of the prison services in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and
England and Wales. We recommend that the Northern Ireland Prison
Service reviews its policy and practices relating to vulnerable
prisoners in order to ensure that they provide effective protection
from bullying and victimisation. (Paragraph 153)
24. We conclude that
the inspection arrangements of Northern Ireland prisons are operating
satisfactorily and are pleased to note that Criminal Justice Inspection
Northern Ireland has established effective working relationships
with the Northern Ireland Prison Service and with other inspection
agencies. (Paragraph 160)
25. We are pleased
to note that the Prisoner Ombudsman's Office has become well established
in Northern Ireland and that it has developed good working relationships
with the prison service and with each prison establishment. We
believe that, at a suitable opportunity, the role of the Office
should be placed on a statutory footing. We are glad that arrangements
are now underway to do so via amendments to the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Bill. We support the proposal from PBNI that there
should be a pilot period of a year or so during which the Ombudsman
deals with probation complaints, and recommend that this pilot
should lead to the development of longer term arrangements for
handling of probation complaints. We call on the Northern Ireland
Prison Service and DHSSPS to ensure that future arrangements for
handling prisoner complaints about healthcare are carefully defined
and clearly communicated to prisoners. (Paragraph 164)
26. We commend the
work of the Independent Monitoring Boards and acknowledge gratefully
the contribution made by those who offer their time on a voluntary
basis. We support the IMBs' request to promote their role and
underline their independence from the Prisoner Ombudsman's Office.
We recommend that the development of a protocol on working arrangements
between the two bodies is treated as a priority. (Paragraph 168)
27. We commend the
work that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is doing to improve
the efficiency of the prison estate and to reduce the cost per
prisoner place. The implementation of efficiency measures has
not been easy for either management or prison staff. (Paragraph
185)
28. However, we also
conclude that the prison service is hampered by the innate inefficiency
of its buildings. In particular the inappropriate use of high
security accommodation at Maghaberry for low security prisoners,
and the separated regime for some paramilitary prisoners, increase
costs. We are accordingly convinced that capital investment is
required to make the Northern Ireland Prison Service a truly first
class prison service and to release greater long-term efficiency
savings. (Paragraph 186)
29. The running costs
of a prison estate in which low security prisoners were kept in
low security accommodation would be much lower than the current
running costs. We recommend that, rather than exclusively focussing
on the worthy discipline of cost per prisoner place, the Northern
Ireland Prison Service estimate the cost of providing the additional
infrastructure that we recommend in Chapter 2, and that it estimate
the efficiency savings that would accrue. We suggest that it would
then be well placed to put the case for additional capital investment
being made outside the Comprehensive Spending Review envelope.
We believe that such investment would lead to substantial savings
in the long run. (Paragraph 187)
30. We question whether
it is appropriate to continue to set a target of reducing the
cost per prisoner place. Our predecessor Committee recommended
in 2004 that this target be abandoned for the foreseeable future
and we are disappointed that this recommendation was not accepted.
At that time, the Government undertook to "seek the most
useful way to present the extra costs of separation" and,
at the very least, we believe that the figure used for measuring
the cost per prisoner place should be one which excludes the costs
of running the separated regime. (Paragraph 188)
31. The Northern Ireland
Prison Service accommodates a disproportionate number of remand
prisoners. We recommend that the same political priority be placed
on speeding up the process of bringing cases to trial as currently
exists with regard to reducing the cost per prisoner place. (Paragraph
189)
| 
