House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs First Report

4 Separation of paramilitary prisoners

82. After the closure of HMP Belfast in 1996 and HMP Maze in 2000, HMP Maghaberry, which opened in 1986, became the only prison in Northern Ireland holding male prisoners who were members of paramilitary organisations. As it had done when HMP Maze was open, Maghaberry continued to accommodate such prisoners on an integrated basis with other prisoners. Following a series of protests in the summer of 2003, the Government commissioned a review of conditions at Maghaberry, "particularly as they relate to safety".[96] The review was conducted by a panel chaired by Sir John Steele, a former Director of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The panel's report noted that it would be very difficult to maintain the status quo of an integrated regime if, as was considered likely, the protests became more widespread, because "prison staff might well be put at even more risk", and concluded that alternative arrangements were "necessary in the interests of safety".[97] The panel then considered a range of options other than integration. They concluded that most of these were impracticable, but that "separation by paramilitary affiliation" could provide a safer environment than the status quo, provided that "staff remain on landings, normal lock-ups are applied and prisoners have the option of mixed accommodation." Because of previous experience at HMP Maze (which we discuss below), this conclusion was reached only after "much soul-searching" and on the basis that "the Government will never again concede complete control of the wings to prisoners as happened at [the] Maze".[98] In accepting the recommendations of the Steele Review, the Government endorsed the review's conclusions about the need to avoid a return to Maze-like conditions.

83. Our predecessor Committee conducted an inquiry into the decision to separate paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry in October to December 2003.[99] Jane Kennedy, the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland told them that "… the recommendations that the review came forward with … did say that we should strive to change the system to meet some of the demands that prisoners were making but to do it in a way that maintained safety for prisoners and for the prison officers as well and in a way which meant that the Prison Service retained control over the prisoners at all times".[100]

84. The Committee's 2003 report noted the strain that separation of prisoners at Maghaberry had placed on the prison's resources and drew attention to the consequent effect of separation on the regime for ordinary prisoners. The Committee recommended that the capital and operational costs of running the separated regime should be calculated and met outside the Prison Service's main budget and that further efficiency savings should not be required of the service while separation was in operation.[101] The Committee also drew attention to the extraordinary complexity of HMP Maghaberry, housing high security prisoners, short sentence prisoners, remand prisoners, a few immigration detainees and all women prisoners (who were subsequently transferred to Hydebank Wood) in addition to accommodating separated prisoners. In the Committee's view, this "created too much of a burden both for staff and for the system".[102]

85. Our predecessor Committee noted that at HMP Maze, the separate treatment of paramilitary prisoners had been associated with "a significant loss of management control over the paramilitary areas".[103] Certain paramilitary prisoners were even recognised as "officers commanding" their housing blocks, as in a prisoner of war camp.[104] Sir John Steele acknowledged to our predecessor Committee that the separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry had been opposed by "all the prison professionals that [the panel] met" for fear that the situation in the Maze prison would be recreated at Maghaberry.[105] The Steele Review fully acknowledged fears that the situation at the Maze would be replicated where "a prisoner could be tortured to death and the Prison Service would not know until the body was handed out. A tunnel could be dug and a cell filled with soil and the Prison Service would not know".[106] In his evidence during our inquiry, Mr Bob Cromie, Deputy Chairman of the Prison Governors' Association, recounted his experiences as a governor on the H-blocks in the Maze prison in the "bad old days, [when] the inmates had control" during the 1980s. He described being regularly surrounded by 25 or 30 prisoners and being unable to get out of the wing for several hours in the H-blocks.[107]

86. An illustration of the legacy of the paramilitary threats to prison staff is that prison officers in Northern Ireland are still entitled to personal issue firearms for personal protection. Representatives of the Prison Governors' Association noted that some prison officers had returned their weapons, whilst others were adamant that they were still necessary.[108] In his evidence to the Committee on 21 November, the Minister emphasised that there were still real threats to prison officers from dissident Republican groups and others.[109]

87. The Committee took extensive evidence on this subject, much of which is referred to below. We must at the outset however, place it on the record that a prisoner only goes into a separated wing at his own request and that he has the option to withdraw from separation at any time.[110] The Minister told us that as at 21 November 2007, there were 31 Republican and 34 Loyalist prisoners in separated accommodation.[111]

88. Ms Anne Owers spoke of the psychological effect on prison officers of the establishment of the separated regime at Maghaberry. She believed that it had "knocked back the confidence that had been starting to emerge of engaging the prisoners in a more proactive way".[112] However, representatives of the Prison Governors Association denied that the separated regime had raised concerns amongst prison officers about their security.[113]

89. Ms Anne Owers also reported that her office's confidential prisoner surveys had revealed that a higher percentage of prisoners at Maghaberry said that they had felt unsafe in the prison since the introduction of separation than had done so before.[114] She argued that the separated regime represented both an unwarranted drain on resources and was damaging to the culture of the prison for both prisoners and prison officers.[115]

90. Under the current separated regime, prisoners are subject to "controlled movement" on the landings whereby a maximum of three are allowed out of their cells together at one time, escorted by five prison officers.[116] The Prison Officers Association argued that, at one level, separation had worked well as only one prison officer had been assaulted since separation was introduced.[117] It had opposed the reintroduction of separation but was convinced that, given that it had been re-introduced, certain measures such as controlled movement had to be implemented to avoid a repetition of the situation at the Maze prison where the prisoners effectively took control of the prison.[118]

91. The Prison Officers Association expressed concern that separation diverted scarce resources from other parts of the prison.[119] In the event of staff shortages, prison officers were—because of safety concerns in the separated accommodation—always diverted from other activities, such as running programmes for ordinary sentenced prisoners, to maintain the full complement on the separated wings.[120] "All the resources, all the staff, are directed towards the separated regimes and the rest of the inmates lose out."[121] We noticed on our visit to Maghaberry in July that separated prisoners were located in the best and most modern buildings. We accept that this is to facilitate control rather than to grant privileges, but it is unfortunate and could cause resentment among other prisoners.

92. The Life Sentence Review Commissioners shared concerns about the resources that were taken up in providing for the separated regime.[122] They also noted that, because of their paramilitary status, separated prisoners tended not to engage with prison or probation staff and did not take advantage of the facilities offered.[123] There was an inconsistency in separated prisoners' continued adherence to paramilitary associations and the requirement to address offending behaviour that was expected of life sentence prisoners.[124] Life sentence prisoners were expected to address their offending and take advantage of the facilities offered by the Prison Service and the Probation Service, enabling them to indicate that they would not pose a risk of serious harm to the public if they were released.[125] It was difficult for the prison staff and the prisoner to engage with such programmes if the prisoner was on the separated regime.[126]

93. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was critical of the "excessive security" in the separated wings.[127] Under the existing timetable in the separated regime, prisoners would be out of their cells for as little as four hours every other day.[128] The Commission also reported allegations of "arbitrary" strip searches that were concerned less with security or drug control than with harassment and control of prisoners.[129] It questioned whether the separated wings needed to be so rigorously controlled.[130] However, the Committee was also told of prisoners in the separated wings who had to be locked up for their own safety. Some loyalist prisoners were indeed reported to be on 23-hour lock up in the Special Supervision Unit (SSU) after the police had alerted the Prison Service to specific threats to these individuals.[131]

94. Professor McWilliams, Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, believed that there had been a "deterioration in the provision of services in terms of access to education and access to recreation".[132] She also reported that she had been "quite shocked at the lack of hygiene standards that we observed given that these prisoners are eating their food in their own cells".[133] The Commission believed that the "regime for the separated prisoners was worse and had less services than the regime for the so-called "ordinary" prisoners". The Commission expressed no view on the continuation of separation. It noted that paramilitary prisoners had, as recommended by the Steele Review, the option of requesting mixed accommodation, but, Mr O'Neill, Commissioner, explained that it had no remit to encourage prisoners to opt out of the separated regime. He also said that "while it is in existence as a regime I think it is very important for us to ensure that human rights standards are maintained".[134]

95. Ms Anne Owers described the regime available to separated prisoners as "really, really poor" and said that "So you had a group of prisoners who were pulling in all the resources to themselves but actually nothing was much happening with them that was going to make them less likely to offend once they left".[135]

96. 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.

97. British Irish Rights Watch agreed that the regime for separated prisoners was inferior to that offered to other prisoners and stated that it was unjustifiable to discriminate in this way against prisoners who were in segregated accommodation for their own safety.[136] It also suggested that separated prisoners were unfairly treated in the application of the prison privileges scheme, and that separated prisoners and their visitors were subject to more searches than ordinary prisoners. British Irish Rights Watch argued that:

separated prisoners are often convicted of the same crimes as integrated prisoners, and have chosen to be separated for their own safety. It is thus unclear why they are perceived as being more dangerous than their integrated counterparts. It seems that this perception is a hangover from the days when all paramilitary prisoners were segregated, and were in a constant battle for control over the wings with the prison authorities.[137]

98. We believe that this argument is based on the assumption that paramilitaries have chosen to be segregated for their own safety. Historically, the safety issue is more complex than this. It is true that the Steele Review recommended separation on the grounds of overall safety in the prison, and that prisoners only go into the separated regime at their own request. However, the Steele Review did not advocate separation only on the grounds of prisoners' safety; the safety of prison officers was also high on the review panel's policy agenda, as was the issue of "ordinary prisoners" being open to "bullying and recruitment" by paramilitaries. Similarly, the current criteria for admission to the separated wings take into account wider dimensions of safety. We believe it appropriate for the Prison Service to take these factors into account, together with the bitter experience of the Maze, when setting a regime, provided that the regime complies fully with required human rights standards. We note also that paramilitary prisoners seem to be at some risk from within their own community as well as from paramilitaries from the other community; splits within and between loyalist paramilitary groups and between dissident republican groups have been reflected in tensions in HMP Maghaberry.

99. 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.

100. Our predecessor Committee expressed its reservations about separation,[138] and we have heard evidence that it is damaging for the culture of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Separation of paramilitary prisoners perpetuates a culture in the Northern Ireland Prison Service of distance between prison officers and prisoners, with prison officers relegated to the position of "turnkeys" because of the dangers of conditioning rather than engaging constructively with prisoners and helping them to address their offending behaviour and begin to prepare for rehabilitation into society. This undermines much of the positive work that the prison service is doing to encourage engagement elsewhere in the prison estate. It also creates the paradoxical situation where the prison officers who are most at risk are those who have least opportunity to exercise their initiative and talents as prison officers.

101. We also note the high resource and opportunity cost of running the staff intensive separated regime. The Minister told us that there was "no question it is an expensive facility to run".[139] We noted in Chapter 2 that the separated regime adds to the extraordinary complexity of HMP Maghaberry and we have no doubt that this has a significant impact on the quality of the regime that can be offered to ordinary prisoners because of the staffing priority that is always given to the separated regime.

102. The case for separation of paramilitary prisoners will become increasingly difficult to sustain as Northern Ireland continues its process of normalisation. No other prison service within the UK allows for separation of accommodation on the grounds of organisational affiliation. Throughout the period of the Northern Ireland Troubles, paramilitary prisoners from Northern Ireland who committed offences in England were held in integrated prison accommodation. Conditions in the Maze developed as they did, and separation at Maghaberry was conceded, solely because of the power that paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland had to put at risk the lives and wellbeing of other prisoners and prison staff.

103. 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.

96 Review of Safety at HMP Maghaberry (The Steele Report), August 2003, www.nio.gov.uk. Back

97 Ibid. Back

98 Letter from the Steele Review team to Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, August 2003 Back

99 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry, HC 302. Back

100 Ibid. Q 735. Back

101 Ibid. paragraphs 89-90. Back

102 Ibid. paragraphs 161-162. Back

103 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry, HC 302, paragraph 9. Back

104 Ibid. paragraph 9. Back

105 Ibid. paragraph 24. Back

106 The Steele Report, paragraph 47. Back

107 Q 104 Back