House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Written Evidence

Written evidence from British Irish Rights Watch

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 British Irish RIGHTS WATCH (BIRW) is an independent non-governmental organisation that has been monitoring the human rights dimension of the conflict, and the peace process, in Northern Ireland since 1990. Our services are available, free of charge, to anyone whose human rights have been violated because of the conflict, regardless of religious, political or community affiliations. We take no position on the eventual constitutional outcome of the conflict.

1.2 British Irish RIGHTS WATCH welcomes the opportunity to participate in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's inquiry into the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). BIRW has been monitoring prison conditions, within the context of the conflict, for a number of years. As a result we have participated in several NIPS consultations including reforms to the separated prisoners regime, changes to the policy on drug and alcohol use and the development of a privileges scheme.

2. SEPARATED PRISONERS

2.1 In Northern Ireland, uniquely, prisoners who believe that they may be in danger if sent into the general prison population due to their membership of/or affiliation to a paramilitary group, can opt to go into segregated prison conditions known as the separated regime. BIRW has been monitoring the separated regime since its inception and we highlight two ongoing and inter-related issues. Firstly, the NIPS has ignored the human rights implications of treating prisoners differently based on their need for protection. Secondly, there is a need for the NIPS to bring the separated regime in line with other regimes within the NIPS and to meet international prison standards. While BIRW are sympathetic to the difficulties of managing the special situation caused by the conflict in Northern Ireland and acknowledge the fact that prison officers were targeted by paramilitaries, we do not believe that punishing paramilitary-affiliated prisoners beyond the levels set by the court is appropriate. BIRW have long argued that there is only a limited difference between separated and integrated prisoners. Often individuals have committed the same crimes and received the same sentences. Separated prisoners consider their safety to be at risk and opt to go into the separated regime for their own protection. Thus the separated regime can be considered a safety measure rather than carrying any other implication or conferring any particular status on prisoners who choose to participate in the separated regime. It follows that it would be wrong to discriminate against prisoners who have been placed on the separated regime for reasons of safety.

2.2 In July 2006, we wrote to the Governor of Maghaberry Prison, voicing our apprehension about the allegation that some republican prisoners, who had chosen to go into the separated regime, were being locked in their cells for extended periods of time and had to consume their meals in their cells. This matter has still yet to be satisfactorily resolved.[1] The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee may wish to pursue allegations about the treatment of republican prisoners further.

2.3 The UN Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners stipulates that prisoners must be treated "... with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings"?[2] The NIPS clearly appears to value separated and integrated prisoners differently, in the ways we set out below, in contravention of Principle 2 of the UN Basic Principles, which notes: "There shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."[3]

Privileges scheme

2.4 The disparity of treatment between separated and integrated prisoners is found within the privileges scheme, used in the Northern Ireland Prison Service to reward good behaviour. Prisoners have a number of regimes open to them, which, dependent on factors such as drug use and participation in education, offer rewards such as increased work opportunities. The fact that integrated prisoners have three schemes open to them, while separated prisoners have access to only two schemes, is inherently unfair to the separated prisoners.

2.5 For integrated prisoners, progression between the schemes is defined by the following behaviour. "Prisoners on Basic Regime are subject to weekly staff reports. Four consecutive good reports will result in a recommendation of promotion to Standard. Prisoners on Standard Regime are subject to weekly staff reports. Eight good reports will result in a recommendation of promotion to Enhanced. Enhanced prisoners must be actively working in a resettlement or life sentence plan."[4] In contrast, the criteria for the scheme progression of separated prisoners are more stringent and include a need for an 80% attendance rate at timetabled activities.[5]

2.6 BIRW compared the criteria for a separated and integrated prisoner to progress from the Standard to the Enhanced privileges scheme.

Separated prisoners must, "Be free of any-disciplinary awards for a rolling three month period".[6]

A separated prisoner must, "Demonstrate he is drug free".[8]

A separated prisoner must, "Sign up to, and demonstrate, that he is actively taking part in developmental activities through his attendance. (Assessment of this should be managed over a period of a month during which he would be required to attend a minimum level of timetabled activities. ...)"[10]

2.7 These differences are also manifested in other areas of the scheme. No mention is made of an appeals process in cases where a separated prisoner is demoted from the Standard regime. For integrated prisoners, an appeal can be submitted on demotion and will be heard by the Prison Governor.[12] Similarly, we draw attention to the fact that integrated prisoners may be financially discriminated against in contrast to their separated counterparts. It is not clear why separated prisoners on the Standard regime would receive more money than integrated prisoners on the Enhanced regime (£14 versus £l5) especially considering that there is supposed to be parity between the Enhanced and Standard regimes. Similarly, it was unclear why those integrated prisoners on the Standard regime received a pound less than separated prisoners (£5 compared to £6)?

Searches of separated prisoners

2.8 BIRW are uneasy about the level of searches applied to both prisoners and visitors alike. We draw attention to the specific targeting of separated prisoners for searches: "Due to the increased level of threat posed by separated prisoners, they are subjected to rub down searches more often than their integrated counterparts".[13] As we have already established, 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; today a paramilitary prisoner can choose whether to be separated or integrated, and how dangerous he is should be a matter of individual assessment rather than group stigma.

2.9 BIRW is disturbed by the use of a passive drug dogs on prison visitors. We have had several complaints from visitors who have had absolutely no contact with drugs but same been picked out by the dogs. There are many opportunities for cross-contamination with traces of drugs in a prison, for example in prison busses, and it is humiliating for, say a middle-aged, law-abiding mother to be publicly identified as a potential drugs carrier. We supported the change which would allow the individual picked out to leave the prison and for the remaining members of the party to have a closed visit. While we noted that this was not ideal, it went some way to promoting and maintaining prisoners' links with their families.

3. EDUCATION

3.1 Access to education and developmental work is a key part of any effort to rehabilitate prisoners. Clearly the NIPS is working towards enhancing this provision through the proposed construction of a second classroom at Maghaberry. However, considering the amount of time that prisoners spend in their cells, it seems to us that a fortnightly visit to the library is not enough. Nor do we agree that separated prisoners should be deprived of access to the main library facility. We believe that this leaves separated prisoners at an educational and recreational disadvantage, which may undermine their chances of rehabilitation. We feel it important that the NIPS develop a system where access to the main library is shared between integrated and separated prisoners.

3.2 The NIPS operates in a post-conflict society and as such the prison population (both integrated and separated) could benefit from the development of a robust personal skills and community development programme. BIRW are hopeful that that the NIPS will work towards enhancing the provision of courses to develop skills such as victim awareness, civil/social issues and stress/anger management. We would also like to see more courses that will provide prisoners with skills that will enable them to find gainful employment once released from prison.

4. WOMEN PRISONERS

4.1 There has been considerable debate about the state of Ash House at Hydebank Wood, the only women's prison facility in Northern Ireland. The publication of "The Hurt Inside" by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) exposed the extent the substandard treatment of Northern Ireland's women prisoners. While the NIPS has responded to this report with a series of consultations and proposed policy changes, the basic fact remains that vulnerable women are being placed in inappropriate conditions and the NIPS has been exceedingly slow to enact any of these proposed changes, many of which remain at the research and policy review stage.[14] It is clear, and indeed the NIPS itself admits, Ash House is not the long-term solution for Northern Ireland's female prisoners. However, BIRW would like to see the NIPS address this concern more promptly and effectively. The recent review of women prisoners in England by Baroness Corston highlighted the special needs of women within the prison environment and called for a radical new approach to this issue.[15]

5. PRISON REGIME FOR INTEGRATED PRISONERS

5.1 BIRW commented on the draft policy issued in mid-2006 by the NIPS which focussed on the prison regime and a privileges scheme for integrated prisoners. As already noted, the NIPS' commitment to improving prison conditions and the strong emphasis placed upon self-improvement and education is a positive step forward. However, BIRW did have two issues with the policy: the need for adequate provisions for vulnerable groups and a recognition that prisoners on remand should not be placed under the same regime as convicted prisoners.

5.2 Firstly, in some areas of the proposed privileges scheme, BIRW felt that the NIPS was being unnecessarily conservative. For instance, the fact that a prisoner could be demoted from their level in the privileges scheme for receiving "two adverse reports in any three month period from any member of staff".[16] BIRW advised that the period of time in which these reports are received was shortened, perhaps to one month. Similarly, we also advocated that the NIPS considered adding measures to ensure that, where repeated reports against a particular prisoner come from a particular officer, there was no victimisation involved. Connected to this principle, BIRW was worried that in reality the ability of prisoners to complain to members of staff where they feel that the prison had failed to comply with the privileges compact was limited. There is a need for the NIPS to have an open and non-

5.3 Secondly, un-convicted prisoners, according to the British criminal justice system, are innocent until proven guilty. Inclusion in the scheme lent itself to the undermining of this principle. It also may result in the institutionalisation of individuals in an environment where their stay may only be temporary. The best way to address the employment, stimulation and development of un-convicted, or remand, prisoners, would be to devise a scheme which took into account their specific circumstances. A similar principle should be applied to the application of this scheme to immigrant detainees. The NIPS should consider developing a scheme suitable for immigrant detainees, perhaps with a focus on language skills (which would materially assist those who were not returned home) rather than incorporating them into the wider framework of the general prison population. It should always be remembered that immigrant detainees may not have committed any crime and may merely be awaiting the outcome of a determination of an application to remain in the UK.

6. MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

6.1 As the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are no doubt aware, Northern Ireland has a higher suicide rate among young people in contrast to many other European states. The rate of self-harming and suicide in prisons is often higher than the general population due in part to the vulnerability of the inmates combined with periods of extreme stress. As the "Hurt Inside", indicated, there is a strong need for the NIPS to address issues such as the training of staff in suicide prevention, the acknowledgement of vulnerable prisoners and the need to provide specific care to this group to mitigate self-harming and suicide. Research carried out by Professor Roy McClelland in his review of non-natural deaths in Northern Ireland Prison Service Establishments (June 2002 to March 2004) in response to six deaths within the NIPS estate over a two year period,[17] indicated that suicide rates in Northern Ireland prisons were actually lower than those found in Scottish prisons nor were they far from rates in English prisons. However, Professor McClelland highlighted several areas where the NIPS was failing: an absence of shared information about suicide across prisons, the difficulties of families in expressing concerns to the NIPS, infrequent suicide risk assessments, weaknesses within the prison healthcare system and the very particular relationship between prisoners and prison staff in a post-conflict context. The recommendations made in Professor McClelland's report and other more specific reviews of the prison health care system have not been fully implemented. The NIPS seems slow to acknowledge the need to improve the health care system, and the need for this change to be timely.

According to the NIPS,

"Standards covering all aspects of the provision of healthcare have been drawn up and await final approval for publication and an Operational Policy document has been drafted for the Psychiatric Unit within Maghaberry Prison which should be agreed soon".

However, many of these reforms were based on research and recommendations which were published in 2002, nearly five years ago. There is clearly a significant need for the NIPS to make a serious and efficient commitment to improving the provision of health care, particular mental health care within prisons.

7. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL ABUSE

7.1 BIRW has been supportive of the measures proposed by the NIPS with regard to preventing the abuse of drugs and alcohol within prisons, particularly the emphasis placed upon on an inter-agency holistic approach to drug/alcohol problems and the use of treatment equivalency to the non-prison community: However, we did take issue with the fact that, the NIPS had placed too strong an emphasis upon the need for localised prison drugs/alcohol policies. While BIRW acknowledged that the structure and prison population of each prison in Northern Ireland was different, we cautioned against making differentiations between various categories of prisoners. One cause for concern was that the localised nature of these policies meant that they would not be subject to human rights-proofing, or Section 75 screening. The NIPS should apply the same policies across all of Northern Ireland's prison estate especially on issues such as the number of times a prisoner can be subjected to a drugs test and the quality of the treatment available. BIRW also raised our unease at the monitoring of telephone calls "to provide drugs-related intelligence".[18] There is the potential for a prisoner's right to privacy, as well as that of the prisoner's family members or friends, to be invaded by this surveillance. The NIPS should either reconsider the recording of telephone conversations, or make sure all prisoners are aware that their conversations may be recorded and why.

8. THE USE OF FORCE

8.1 BIRW recently participated the NIPS consultation regarding the proposed use of PAVA spray. For the Committee's reference, a copy of our response has been appended. BIRW had serious apprehensions about the introduction of PAVA spray into the prison environment.

While we recognise the difficulties faced by prison officers in violent situations, we felt that PAVA spray posed too greater a danger to both the prisoners and prison officers to be used effectively and safely. When PAVA is used as an incapacitant, it is essentially a pepper spray, used on the eyes either to incapacitate and/or to obtain compliance by causing acute pain, from an individual. According to Association of Chief Police Officers:

This point becomes particularly significant if this weapon were to be discharged in a confined space which could both intensify the pain for the prisoner and put the prison officer at risk of cross contamination.

8.2 The Use of Force policy developed by the NIPS appears to understand the importance of placing human rights at the centre of prisoner care and as a result emphasizes the use of force as a last resort. There is also a clear explanation of each Article of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) referred to in the policy. However, there are some aspects of the policy which we feel could be improved. These include, firstly, a revision of the statement that the use of force should "act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence".[20] This statement appears to advocate the use of force as a means of punishment rather than a method of managing violence. Secondly, while there was a strong acknowledgement of the importance of prisoners accessing healthcare after they had been subjected to the use of force by prison officers, BIRW was alarmed that the policy stated: "Any medical emergency must be addressed immediately (bearing in mind the possibility of a subject feigning a medical condition)".[21] We felt this provided prison officers with an excuse to deny medical treatment where they suspect a prisoner of feigning symptoms, with the possibility of very serious consequences. Thirdly, it was unclear how officers would be trained in the human rights aspects of the use of force beyond the fact that the policy cites human rights as an issue of which to be aware.

9. CORRUPTION

9.1 A 2006 internal prison service report indicated that a small minority of prison officers in England and Wales were corrupt. This corruption primarily involved the smuggling of drugs and mobile phones toprisoners. While we noted-that the numbers of corrupt officers in England and Wales were relatively small, perhaps 1,000 officers, BIRW is aware that the NIPS must be facing similar problems.[22] It is important that anti-drug measures apply, and are seen to apply, equally to prison staff and prisoners, both from the point of good governance and in order to ensure that the measures are effective. As recent media coverage has indicated, there are serious problems in other UK prisons with the smuggling of inappropriate and banned items into prison[23] In Scotland, "Of the 2,286 smuggled items seized by prison officers in the past 15 months, the largest number related to drugs: there were 1,131 of those, including needles and syringes".[24]

10. CONCLUSION

10.1 As noted in our introduction to this submission, the NIPS has taken some positive steps toward improving the prison regime. However BIRW are concerned that these changes are not substantial enough and that they are being implemented at a relatively slow speed. This applies particularly to proposed steps to ensure that separated and integrated prisoners are treated equally. It would be helpful if the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee encouraged the NIPS to implement human rights compliant, timely and effective changes to the Northern Ireland prison regime along the lines set out in this submission.

British Irish Rights Watch

April 2007