House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs First Report

2 The Prison Estate

Adequacy of the existing prison estate

13. The Northern Ireland prison population on 26 November 2007 was 1467.[4] At approximately 84 per 100,000 population, Northern Ireland has a much lower proportion of its population in prison than either England and Wales (148 prisoners per 100,000 population) or Scotland (139 prisoners per 100,000 population).[5] Northern Ireland prisoners are accommodated within three establishments with a total official capacity of 1503.[6] The overall annual average prisoner population increased by 10% from 1301 in 2005 to an average of 1433 in 2006. Since the beginning of 2001, the prisoner population has risen by over 70%; the prison service is planning for a further increase in its population of as much as 50% over the next 10-15 years.[7] The prison service is already facing a degree of overcrowding and significant doubling of prisoners (where cells designed for one person are occupied by two) at HMP Maghaberry.[8]

14. Two new Ready to Use (RTU) accommodation blocks, providing 60 cells each, are being developed for use at Magilligan and Maghaberry. They are due to be operational from mid-2008. The RTUs will provide the necessary cover for the construction of more permanent accommodation providing for the enlarged prison population. A pre-fabricated unit with capacity for 50 prisoners is also ready for use at Magilligan.

15. We observed the poor quality of the buildings at HMP Magilligan during our April visit. Prisoners there are mainly housed in H-block design accommodation erected in the 1970s as short-term accommodation; many of the facilities, including the workshops and health centre are in temporary structures built as long ago as 1940.[9] The Chairman of the Independent Monitoring Board at Magilligan commented that the buildings at Magilligan were well-maintained for what they were, but were overall of poor quality. We concur. The accommodation in the H-block design buildings lacked in-cell sanitation, but it was argued that installing such facilities would be "throwing good money away", as what was required was a rebuilding of the prison.[10] The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission agreed that the buildings at Magilligan were clearly inadequate, and criticised the lack of in-cell sanitation and the single buzzer system for both emergency calls and night-time lavatory requests as falling below the required human rights standards.[11]

16. The Chairman of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Maghaberry noted the inadequacy of the kitchens at the prison; a prison built to serve 450 prisoners was serving over 800 and was not fully functional.[12] Mr Brian Coulter, the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, told us he had received complaints from prisoners about the inadequate kitchen provision at HMP Maghaberry.[13] We understand that plans were developed to replace these kitchens.[14]

17. We did observe that the two newest blocks at HMP Maghaberry, Bush and Roe Houses, are of a recognisably higher standard than the rest of the Maghaberry accommodation. The unsatisfactory nature of the rest of the Maghaberry accommodation derives in large measure from its design (as is also the case at Magilligan). Better designs allow clear lines of sight that do not leave prison officers isolated. This is a point that was stressed in evidence by representatives of the Prison Governors' Association who noted the implications for the cost effectiveness of the estate. The H-block design at Magilligan, and indeed the design of most of the accommodation at Maghaberry requires additional prison officers on duty. In contrast, the designs of Bush and Roe Houses, similar in design to the "radial spur" of a Victorian prison, were commended.[15] When we visited Belmarsh, the Governors there told us that the prison design worked well and enabled them to use prison officer time most efficiently.

18. Mr Spratt, speaking on behalf of the Prison Officers' Association, strongly agreed that the H-block design accommodation was very staff intensive because "there are so many different hiding areas", and he hoped that the design of the new RTU units at Maghaberry and Magilligan would address this problem.[16] He believed that the staffing levels in the RTUs would be reduced, as they were of a more open design.[17] Mr Spratt expressed appreciation that prison service management had consulted staff on the design of the RTUs. As a result he believed that the design would prove to be more successful.[18]

19. A number of witnesses spoke of the inadequacy of the existing prison estate, arguing that it needed substantial capital investment. Ms Anne Owers, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, believed that the Northern Ireland Prison Service faced a dilemma as to whether it should "do a bit of tidying up around the edges", make the best of "unsatisfactory accommodation" and "put in a few more temporary units", or whether what was actually required was "significant capital investment with more of a root and branch approach to getting rid of some of the extremely unsatisfactory accommodation".[19]

20. The Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) argued that over a period of 30 years, almost all of the capital investment in the Northern Ireland Prison Service was put into Belfast Prison and the Maze Prison and was focussed on maintaining security.[20] Both of these prisons were now closed, and there was an urgent need to invest in a prison estate that was fit for the demands now placed on it.[21] Notwithstanding its high cost per prisoner place, the Northern Ireland Prison Service had faced costs in the transition from holding a large number of terrorist prisoners and politically-motivated prisoners, and it had a strong case for capital investment.[22]

21. Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, welcomed the announcement in the Comprehensive Spending Review of £1.2 billion a year for the Northern Ireland Office over the next three years, saying "This settlement means […] that we can move ahead with important new prison accommodation […]. This settlement puts the […] criminal justice system on a sustainable footing for the years ahead. This should be reassuring to the Executive as it continues its preparations for the devolution of justice and policing."[23]

22. 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.

23. The Life Sentence Review Commissioners were concerned about the adequacy of the facilities for assessing the risk to the community posed by life sentenced prisoners as they approached the end of their tariff, noting that the Prisoner Assessment Unit was located in the "former staff locker room of Belfast Prison".[24] The prison estate did not allow for a "phased approach to testing prisoners under conditions other than in secure accommodation" or in the PAU as there was no open prison in Northern Ireland.[25] However, we were impressed on our visit to the Prisoner Assessment Unit by the work that was being done to prepare prisoners for eventual release into the community, whilst observing the shortcomings of the old and shabby buildings. In the Committee's view, it is essential that the Prisoner Assessment Unit is replaced with purpose-built accommodation at the earliest practicable opportunity.

24. The Northern Ireland Probation Board emphasised the huge demands placed on HMP Maghaberry by the fact that low security prisoners are kept in a high security establishment.[26] Keeping low security prisoners, including fine defaulters, in a high security prison has an impact not only on the regimes provided for those prisoners but also for the allocation of prison service resources. It is more staff intensive, and therefore more expensive, to operate a high security regime where movement is more strictly controlled around the prison estate and prisoners are escorted in lower prisoner to staff ratios than in a lower security regime. The separation of some paramilitary prisoners, which we discuss in detail at Chapter 4, also adds to the complexity of the regime at Maghaberry.[27]

25. Catering for different categories of prisoners in one prison is a cause of inefficiency at Maghaberry. Ms Anne Owers argued that operating "prisons within prisons, to have quite separate zoned arrangements for different categories of prisoners" was a more effective approach than subjecting every prisoner to the security classification of the "most risky" individuals.[28] The Chairman of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP Maghaberry noted that "high security is the umbrella security across the whole prison […] right down to the area of fine defaulters".[29] This had negative implications for the cost per prisoner place and the regime that was operated for the low security prisoners.

26. The prison service has been developing a new approach for identifying prisoners' security classification to ensure that prisoners are managed at the lowest appropriate security level.[30] The new classification system was due to be implemented in 2007 but this has been delayed. Ms Anne Owers noted the need to make progress with the security reclassification in order to provide clear information about the requirements of the prison estate.[31]

27. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland indicated that the reclassification envisaged a very significant reassessment of the security categorisation of the prison population.[32] The existing system classified the October 2005 population as 11% high risk, 82% medium risk, and 7% low risk. The trialled reclassification model categorised 9% of the prison population as high risk, 34% as medium risk and 57% as low risk. The prison service has reported that it "must determine the future configuration of its estate" before the re-classification review can be implemented.[33] However, Mr Masefield informed the Committee that the prison service had decided to alter the existing threefold classification system (High, Medium and Low) to a fourfold (A,B,C,D) system as in England and Wales. He added that "one of the things we will work through in the near future is really identifying the prison population, just the numbers which fall into A, B, C and D, and that will give a better platform for us from which to plan for the future".[34]

28. 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.

Sentencing and the courts

29. In anticipating an increase in the prison population and planning for its adequate accommodation, the Northern Ireland Prison Service must take account of wider policy developments which may have implications for the numbers of people sentenced to prison. In December 2006, the then Criminal Justice Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, David Hanson MP, announced his intention to bring forward proposals to reform the sentencing framework in Northern Ireland.[35] The draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order was laid before Parliament in November 2007. The proposals include a number of options to increase the use of non-custodial disposals, to establish a new form of standard determinate sentence (incorporating custodial and community supervision components) and also propose the end of automatic 50% remission for offenders in Northern Ireland.

30. The proposals would also introduce a new indeterminate custodial sentence (ICS), modelled on the indeterminate "imprisonment for public protection" (IPP) sentences applicable in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. These sentences would be given to offenders who commit specified serious violent or sexual offences, where the court judges there to be a significant risk of the offender causing future "serious harm" to members of the public, and where an extended custodial sentence (ECS) is considered inadequate for public protection. The ICS would be available for offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or longer, and the offender would be released on licence at the discretion of a parole board. Additionally, an ECS, which would be a determinate sentence, would be available for a wider range of offences, but again only where the court judges that there is a significant risk of serious harm. In the ECS, the offender would be eligible for release after serving half of his custodial sentence but could only be released before completing the custodial sentence at the discretion of a parole board.

31. There is some debate about the net overall effect of the proposed sentencing reforms on the prison population. The Life Sentence Review Commissioners believed that the proposed public protection sentences would have a significant effect on prison numbers in Northern Ireland, increasing numbers by an estimated 12.5-15%.[36] Ideally, prisoners subject to an indeterminate sentence would be subject to testing in the environment of an open prison; the introduction of the indeterminate custodial sentence would increase the demand for such a facility.[37]

32. NIACRO believed that a very significant number of women and a smaller but still significant proportion of male prisoners could be adequately punished without custodial sentences.[38] The proposed sentencing reforms would increase the range of non-custodial disposals available to the courts in Northern Ireland, including provision for electronic tagging; conditional early release (making determinate sentence prisoners with the exception of sex offenders and those sentenced to extended sentences eligible for early release on curfew); making curfew an element of bail, licence conditions and community sentences; provision for drug treatment and testing orders as an alternative to custody for some offenders whose drug addiction is the cause of their offending; and a non-custodial sentence for fine-defaulters. NIACRO also argued that part of the pressure on YOC Hydebank Wood would be relieved if a firmer line were maintained that offenders under the age of 18 should be accommodated at the Juvenile Justice Centre in Bangor and not at the Young Offenders Centre.[39] We note that the new purpose built Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre was officially opened in November and will provide accommodation for up to 48 young people between the ages of 15 and 16 years.[40]

33. The Minister told us that he estimated that there would be a net increase in the prison population as a result of the proposed new measures:

Our calculation is that if you look 15 years hence, because we are dealing with more serious offenders for longer, we estimate that that will mean an additional 120 prison places; but we also estimate that low-risk offenders, who will subsequently get community sentences, will take 60 away from that; so there would be a net increase, because of the new sentencing framework, of around 60 places.[41]

34. The sentencing proposals also provide for the introduction of a new non-custodial sentence for fine defaulters. Between 2-3% of prisoners accommodated by the Northern Ireland Prison Service are imprisoned for fine defaulting and the average time in custody for fine defaulters imprisoned in Northern Ireland in 2006 was six days.[42] The Northern Ireland Prison Service expressed concern that fine defaulters take up a disproportionate amount of the time and resources of prison staff in receptions, discharges, prisoner supervision and administration, including medical checks and interviews with Governors.[43] The Criminal Justice Board (CJB) commissioned a working group on fine defaulting which submitted its report in June this year. Following the report, the CJB has commissioned a pilot exercise for six months to ascertain the effectiveness of a Fine Enforcement Officer pursuing unpaid fines before the issue of warrants.[44]

35. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the imprisonment of fine defaulters is in contravention of international human rights standards which demand that prisoners should "not be subjected to any greater restriction or severity than is necessary to ensure safe custody and good order".[45] We were very pleased to learn that Part Two, Chapter Five of the draft Criminal Justice Order would create a Supervised Activity Order as an alternative to committal to prison for fine default. Such orders could be imposed for a minimum of 10 hours and a maximum of 100 of community activities. We also note that the Minister is considering a power to deduct from earnings and benefit.[46]

36. We were told by prisoners on our visits to Northern Ireland prisons that some fine defaulters preferred a short stay in prison as it wiped out their financial liabilities. We were further told that the system was open to abuse by those who knew how to minimise their actual prison sentence; an individual sentenced to three days imprisonment knew to present themselves to a police station after 2 p.m. on a Wednesday as they would then be released early on the Friday.

37. 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.[47] The Minister told us that "it is quite preposterous that so many fine defaulters occupy places in the Northern Ireland prison system".[48] 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.

38. The Northern Ireland Prison Service accommodates a much higher percentage of remand prisoners than the England and Wales service. In 2006, 37% of the Northern Ireland prison population was remand prisoners whereas the equivalent figure for England and Wales at March 2007 was 15%.[49] The number of remand receptions in Northern Ireland prisons rose from 1,922 in 2001 to 3,193 in 2006[50] and the 2006 figure represented a 15% increase on the number of remand receptions in 2005 (2,776). The Probation Board for Northern Ireland told us that the recent growth in the Northern Ireland prison population is mainly attributable to the growth in remands, rather than in numbers of sentenced prisoners, and pointed out that crime rates in Northern Ireland had fallen by 14% since 2002/03.[51] The Chairman of the Independent Monitoring Board for HMP Maghaberry noted that all education, workshops and other resettlement facilities were geared towards sentenced prisoners and there was little that could be done for remand prisoners in this respect.[52] The Minister explained to us that in his view the number on remand was so high because the criminal justice process took too long and the length of stay for remand prisoners was therefore longer than it should be. The real answer was to speed it up, for example by encouraging greater co-operation between the Prosecution Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.[53] The Minister also said that he would introduce bail with electronic tagging and that this measure, which is included in the draft Order, would reduce remands.

39. 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.

40. 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.

Estate strategy

41. The Northern Ireland Prison Service is developing a comprehensive strategy in order to make the Service more efficient and better able to meet current and future demands. This includes plans to develop the prison estate to bring accommodation and prisoner facilities up to date, and to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of the projected prisoner population for the next ten to fifteen years. We trust that the estimate on which accommodation needs have been calculated is sufficiently realistic to ensure that prison facilities will not be overcrowded by the time they are ready.

42. Ideally, a prison service accommodates prisoners at a level of security that is appropriate for their security classification. Some prisoners are kept in highly secure accommodation, but others are kept in less controlled conditions which encourage their rehabilitation and personal development and require lower levels of prison resources. Ideally too, remand prisoners who have an uncertain but usually short term in prison are not held in close contact with longer-sentence prisoners who need to settle to an extended period in custody. With only three prison institutions, the Northern Ireland Prison Service has very little flexibility in how it provides for each of the different categories of prisoner for which it cares. It must accommodate often low numbers of prisoners in certain categories and cannot take advantage of the economies of scale applicable in a larger estate. This makes it an innately expensive prison service.

43. We were impressed on our visit to HMP Maghaberry by the extraordinary complexity of the task facing the prison authorities in accommodating remand and sentenced prisoners with sentences ranging from a matter of days to life sentences, and the full range of security classifications within a high security establishment. In addition, they must cope with the demands of providing separated accommodation for some loyalist and republican paramilitary prisoners. No prison in the United Kingdom compares in terms of the numbers of functions that it is expected to perform. We were impressed by the commitment and dedication of governors and prison officers and auxiliary staff that we met, but believe that steps need to be taken to simplify the task faced by the prison staff in Maghaberry.

44. In discussing the structure of the prison estate, the Northern Ireland Probation Board called for:

Greater diversity of provision, a specialist provision for females, for example. Perhaps we need a low risk prison, an open prison facility of some kind. Perhaps we need better facilities for those who are mentally ill and those with addiction problems. So it may not be a choice between location A or location B, but it may be first of all a decision taken about what is the range of prison facilities that we need in Northern Ireland in the future and then discuss what is the best location for each.[54]

We believe that these points merit the most serious consideration

45. Ms Owers believed that, ideally, the prison system would be comprised of "small, specialised units" with special facilities - for example, for high security prisoners, women and young offenders[55] - but that, for a small prison population, this was an expensive solution.[56] The Committee was impressed on its visit to Dublin by the Irish Prison Service's plans to develop a multi-use prison at Thornton Hall on a very large site and with adjacent court facilities. The ideal solution for Northern Ireland might not be a proliferation of new prisons, but the building of more self-contained units at existing prisons to enable each prisoner to benefit from the type of regime most appropriate to them.

46. The Life Sentence Review Commissioners drew the Committee's attention to the lack of an open prison facility in Northern Ireland, and argued that this had an impact on the proper rehabilitation of life sentenced prisoners.[57] Under the best practice model, as in England and Wales for example, life sentence prisoners move through various levels of security and freedom of movement, finishing with three years in an open prison.[58] The Commissioners believed that the lack of an open prison facility reduced the opportunities for constructive testing of long sentence prisoners.

In an ideal world a life sentence prisoner, as he goes through the punishment phase of his sentence, will address his or her offending and will be assisted in doing that to the point where one can say it is worth testing this prisoner. It is not ideal, by any means, to test the prisoner by discharging him without any restraints or constraints and without any kind of structuring into the community. So the idea is that they move through the regimes in the prison environment and, as it were, they pass at each stage. Then they reach the lowest category of security […] the open prison facility, which, because they are in a relatively free environment, provides indications as to whether they can cope with the vicissitudes […] of their lives in an appropriate way. That gives you some indication that if they move into the community they may well be able to cope in that appropriate way.[59]

We accept the good sense and logic of this argument but must place on the record our recognition of the attempts made at Foyleview within the Magilligan prison complex to develop facilities for pre-release prisoners which are similar to an open prison.

47. We note the recent court decisions made concerning the provision of treatment programmes for indeterminate sentence prisoners in England and Wales. Overcrowding has meant that some prisoners with indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs) have been unable to access the programmes that they need in order to demonstrate that they no longer represent a danger (either because the courses have been oversubscribed or because they been held in local prisons where the necessary programmes are not available). In R (Walker and Wells) v Secretary of State for Justice, the Divisional Court found that the imposition of an indeterminate sentence without making adequate provision for treatment is unlawful.[60] The claimants had received IPP sentences, but the first claimant's minimum term was due to expire in November 2007 and he had not been able to access treatment programmes. In the subsequent case of R (James) v Secretary of State for Justice, the claimant had served his minimum term but remained incarcerated in the local prison where he was unable to undertake the necessary offending behaviour programmes.[61] The failure to provide the necessary resources was deemed unlawful; because the prisoner was prevented from being able properly to show that he was no longer dangerous, his subsequent detention was unlawful.

48. The Northern Ireland Prison Service told us that it is widely recognised that the infrastructure at Magilligan falls well short of acceptable standards and must be replaced,[62] either with new buildings at the same site, or at a different location. Rt Hon Paul Goggins MP, Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for prisons, announced on 21 February that a decision regarding the best location for a replacement for Magilligan prison would be made later in 2007, and the Prison Service has prepared a thorough options appraisal setting out the factors for and against the different options. The Minister told us that he expected to finish scrutinising the appraisal and make an announcement by the end of 2007. We are grateful for his confirmation that he will take the recommendations of this Report into account before reaching his conclusions.[63]

49. HMIP/CJINI pointed out that the building of a new prison was an opportunity to address some of the problems which it had raised in recent inspection reports, such as the need to develop a more representative workforce and to engage residential prison officer staff more actively in the rehabilitation of prisoners.[64] The inspectors recommended that "It will be important that any relocation of the prison estate … should aim at affording equal access to all sections of the community, both for employment and for families visiting the prisons and opportunities for resettlement".[65]

50. Mr Brian Coulter, the Prisoner Ombudsman, told us about the factors which he believed should influence that choice:[66]

It is important that decisions on the future location for Magilligan Prison should be driven by the Prison Service strategic objectives. […] One of the key objectives for any Prison Service must be to prepare prisoners for reintegration to their community. Central to this is the maintenance of contact between prisoners and their families. The location of Magilligan Prison does not for many prisoners lend itself to achieving this. The burden upon families is considerable. Furthermore the opportunities for prisoners to prepare for employment are limited by the present location for many prisoners.[67]

51. On our visit, we were impressed by the prison's positive links with the local community and its resettlement work. Mrs Olwyn Lyner, Chief Executive of NIACRO agreed that although the specialist resettlement staff at Magilligan had achieved some very positive results, the geographical location of Magilligan limited opportunities for the effective resettlement of prisoners, stating that:

there is no doubt that Magilligan, because it has been there for a very long time, has lots of links into its local community, but it will not pass an accessibility test. … We feel that there would be two advantages to a site which would be more centrally located in a stretch that might run between Antrim and Ballymena. One is that it would be more central in terms of the transport network, and secondly there would be a useful connection with Maghaberry Prison in terms of the movement of staff.[68]

52. Mr Finlay Spratt, Chairman of the Prison Officers Association was "totally, totally against" the building of the prison on a new site, because the association had 450 members who worked at Magilligan, and there was "a good staff atmosphere" and "excellent" morale there. Mr Spratt robustly refuted arguments that the relative remoteness of Magilligan could have an adverse effect on prisoner resettlement:

This argument, 'it's too far removed', well, I am sorry, we send prisoners to prison, we have to house them somewhere, and I think Magilligan is as good a location as you can get anywhere throughout Northern Ireland. If you are talking about taxpayers' money, why go and buy a new site when you already have the structure there?[69]

53. Mrs Joan Doherty, Chairman of the Independent Monitoring Board for HMP Magilligan was also supportive of rebuilding at the Magilligan site. She described and commended the range of resettlement work carried out at Magilligan, for example in terms of training and work placements for prisoners reaching the end of their sentences and permanent jobs for prisoners on release. She pointed out that the much valued community links on which this work depended, had taken many years to become well established. She stated that the local population and the other members of her Board wanted to keep a prison at Magilligan, and that there was sufficient land to accommodate it. According to Mrs Doherty, Magilligan had its own culture, distinct from that of Belfast, and that culture was worth preserving.[70]

54. Mr Gregory Campbell MP, a Member of the Committee and in whose constituency Magilligan is sited, argued for a rebuilding of the prison on the Magilligan site.[71] The Magilligan site would not face the same planning obstacles that an alternative site in Ballymena or Antrim would face. Locating a new prison in Ballymena and closing Magilligan would also mean that all prisons in Northern Ireland would be within a 25 mile radius of the greater Belfast area. Mr Campbell also argued that retaining a prison at Magilligan, located in the Limavady council area which was 56% Catholic, held out a better chance of building a more balanced workforce in the prison than moving it to an area that was predominantly Protestant. We particularly commend the excellent work done in the local community by inmates in the Foyleview unit and the strong links between the prison and the local higher education campus. It would not be a routine matter to replicate these successes in another area.

55. The Committee wrote to the Minister in July to express its views on the question of the replacement of HMP Magilligan. The letter noted that, although there was no question of the urgent need to replace the H-block design accommodation at Magilligan, the site itself was capable of extensive and versatile redevelopment. It commented that:

Prisons are not only about buildings. They are about the accumulated wisdom of staff, the links that are made with the surrounding community in relation to educational opportunities and resettlement and, perhaps above all, the morale of those committed staff who work there. There are many acknowledged areas of good practice at Magilligan which should not be lightly discarded. Nor should it be forgotten that any new prison would have significant teething problems before it could establish itself.[72]

It also suggested that rebuilding at the Magilligan site was likely to be a lower cost option than development of a new site closer to Belfast and an option that could be phased over a number of years, which would itself spread the cost. Since sending this letter, the Committee has visited Wheatfield prison in the Republic of Ireland and HMP Belmarsh, both of which have nearby court facilities. If it is decided to use any part of the Magilligan site for remand prisoners, then we believe that careful consideration should be given to the provision of an adjacent court facility.

56. We therefore welcome the clarification from Mr Masefield, Director of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, at the evidence session on 24 October 2007 that the existing site at Magilligan is still in strong contention for the replacement.[73] We visited HMP Magilligan and were impressed by the leadership shown by its Governors and by the morale of the staff we met and their commitment to their work. We were particularly impressed with the resettlement work being undertaken in the Foyleview facility at the prison. Creating a successful prison environment is not a straightforward objective to achieve and cannot easily or immediately be created on a new site. Experience in England and Wales strongly confirms that many new prisons undergo significant problems in the early years of their existence before routines and community links have become established.

57. With the current estate at its disposal, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is obliged to accommodate a large number of prisoners in accommodation which is substantially more secure that is required. This number has increased following the recent security reclassification of prisoners. To a degree, this is inevitable given the complexity and small size of the Northern Ireland prison estate, but it is wasteful of prison service resources and impairs the regimes of prisoners.

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. In Maghaberry, remand prisoners and long-term sentenced prisoners are held together. We heard about similar issues when we visited HMP Belmarsh and noted that HMIP had commented in its 2005 inspection report of Belmarsh that the regime for ordinary prisoners suffered because of the "security and staffing levels required for the minority of category A prisoners - whose needs and risks continued, understandably, to dominate the prison's approach and focus". Maghaberry also faces the challenge of providing a regime for separated paramilitary prisoners.

61. 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.

62. 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.

4 944 sentenced prisoners, 520 remand and 3 immigration detainees. This includes 28 sentenced women prisoners and 18 women remand prisoners. Back

5 Ev 188 Back

6 The Northern Ireland Prison Service website identifies the official capacity of each prison as follows: HMP Maghaberry 745; HMP Magilligan 452; HMP and YOC Hydebank Wood 306. Back

7 Q 634 Back

8 Ev 128 Back

9 Ev 130 Back

10 Q 428 Back

11 Q 523 Back

12 Qq 436, 438 Back

13 Q 165 Back

14 Q 437 Mr McAllister advised us that the expected completion date was October 2007. Back

15 Q 76 Back