Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
MR PETER
SMITH, DR
RONALD GALLOWAY
AND MRS
ELSBETH REA
OBE
27 JUNE 2007
Q340 Chairman: So it is a feasible
proposition? It is not necessarily one which you have obviously
had a chance to think about, but it is feasible?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Q341 Mr Campbell: I just want to
tease that a little bit further. If you were to have an open prison
in close proximity to a third prison, would either Hydebank or
Magilligan be more suitable?
Mr Smith: The idea of an open
prison, as I understand it, is that you are reasonably near large
centres of population where the prisoners can go out to work,
for example, and have the kind of engagement which is regarded
as desirable and appropriate in an open prison setting. Magilligan
is really rather remote from the main centres of population in
Northern Ireland. That would be our only observation about it.
Q342 Mr Campbell: But in terms of
the size of the prison estate, would Magilligan lend itself to
the size to incorporate two, and could Hydebank do the same?
Mr Smith: I am not in a position
to comment on that because I have not looked at the specifics
of scale. There is a factor that I would mention and that is when
these indeterminate public protection sentences, and therefore
these prisoners, come on stream the optimum would be that they
would be processed through the open prison system, as far as is
appropriate, and therefore there will be a greater demand for
open prison places than the relatively small population of lifers
would now indicate. So there is that factor which comes into the
question of which part of the prison estate is utilised.
Q343 Chairman: Have you assessed
the number?
Mr Smith: What has been suggested
to us is that the overall impact on the prison population as it
stands is of the order of 12.5 or 15%. I imagine one could do
a calculation and work out what that would be in absolute terms.
I am not quite sure how many prisoners there are in Northern Ireland
as we sit here today, but if it is 1,500—maybe that is a
large number, I am not quite sure, but if it was 1,500 we would
be talking about an increase in prisoners in this category that
we are talking about of the order, therefore, of a couple of hundred,
perhaps a little more. That, of course, means, if I am right in
my recollection of what the figure for lifers is, you are actually
multiplying the number of prisoners who need rehabilitation by
perhaps a factor of three or four. So in Northern Ireland terms
it looks like it is going to be a colossal quantum change in the
demands on the Prison Service and the resources which are made
available to it.
Q344 Mr Campbell: Just on the issue
of the different prisoner categories, the Chairman has alluded
to the difficulties or problems which the Committee has heard
regarding female prisoners. There is another area where we have
male prisoners who are separated prisoners and then those who
are not. In looking at those three different categories of prisoners,
have you a view as to how the prison estate should reconcile itself
in terms of those three categories of prisoners having to be dealt
with individually?
Mr Smith: I do not feel that I
could answer Mr Campbell's question, but I think maybe my colleagues
might have something to say about it.
Mrs Rea: I suppose our concern
in relation to the separated prisoners is the resources which
are utilised in managing separated prisoners, and obviously that
includes the resources within the prison estate. But we are equally
concerned about the fact that women prisoners are held in Hydebank
alongside young offenders. We are also very conscious of the finite,
if not diminishing, resources available and we have not actually
sat down to try and square the circle in terms of how the prison
estate might be divided to accommodate each of these categories.
We are also concerned about the Prisoner Assessment Unit at Crumlin
Road and the long-term implications of redevelopment around there,
the fact that it is located in a former staff locker room, so
we would add that into the equation.
Q345 Chairman: We have been there
and we have seen it. We could not be impressed by the physical
facilities, but we were impressed by the regime.
Mrs Rea: Of course, and I am talking
about the actual location, should it have to move, and it is another
category that we would be concerned about to add to separated
prisoners and women prisoners.
Q346 Mr Campbell: Just on the issue
of separated prisoners, sensitive as it might be, taking account
of the fact that I would assume everyone would want to ensure
that the safety of prisoners is paramount when they are held in
custody and given the changing nature of Northern Ireland, hopefully
continuing to improve, do you have an opinion about the separated
prisoners and that status?
Mr Smith: The only ones that we
interact with at the moment are those who are serving life sentences
and they pose particular difficulties for us, and indeed for themselves.
Because they do not engage in the normal way with the prison authorities
and with probation, they therefore do not do the rehabilitation
work which is the usual route to release; in other words, by that
means you reduce the risk of serious harm to an insignificant
level and on that basis your release is then directed by the Life
Sentence Review Commissioners. It is difficult to reach that stage
in that setting, so it causes a particular and specific difficulty
of that sort.
Q347 Mr Campbell: But do you have
a view about the continuing status of that group of prisoners?
Mr Smith: As a group of Commissioners,
we have not discussed it or considered it except in the context
I have described.
Sammy Wilson: Could I just go back to
the open prison and the lack of facilities there, because I am
not familiar with the way in which the review works. Why do you
believe it is so important to have that progression to an open
prison, since in the documentation you sent us you indicated that
one of the assessments you make is as to whether or not a prisoner
is still dangerous and would present a risk to society? Presumably
you are still dealing with people and making assessments on people
whom you would not want to see end up in an open prison anyway,
because if they are of such behaviour that they are a risk to
society you would not want to progress that?
Chairman: I am afraid I am going to have
to just adjourn it there. A division has been called. We are expecting,
as I think I told you, Mr Smith, three divisions. Could I ask
colleagues to liaise with whips, and so on, and make sure that
we are back here at the very, very latest at four o'clock? That
should get us through the division lobby three times and if there
are only two we will be back earlier. Please acquit us of any
discourtesy. I am afraid this is Parliamentary life here. I declare
this session adjourned during division, and we will come straight
back to your question, Mr Wilson.
The Committee suspended from 3.34pm to 4.08
pm for a division in the House
Q348 Chairman: I would like to try
and sum up what we were dealing with before we were interrupted
by the division bell. As I understand it, Mr Smith, you and your
colleagues are strongly of the opinion that there should be two
mainstream prisons in Northern Ireland, plus a facility for women,
plus a facility for young offenders and an open prison, is that
correct?
Mr Smith: As far as the first
is concerned, we are really talking about the facilities which
are available as distinct from the physical phenomena. Therefore,
the facilities we would like to see available would include the
various types you have mentioned, Chairman.
Q349 Chairman: Yes, but you wish
to add to the facilities which are currently available. Let us
talk about what they are. You wish to add an open prison facility
and you did say to me at the very beginning that you would prefer
that to be freestanding rather than attached or adjacent to one
of the existing prisons?
Mr Smith: Yes.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q350 Sammy Wilson: I just want to
come on to the open prison solely then. I was asking why you believe
that an open prison facility is essential to make an assessment
of prisoners, especially when you say in some of your written
evidence that sometimes you have got to assess whether a prisoner
is still so dangerous that he cannot be released into society.
So presumably he would not be in an open prison anyway at that
stage?
Mr Smith: It is connected with
the progression. 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, that is to say the open prison facility, which, because
they are in a relatively free environment, provides indications
as to whether they can cope with the vicissitudes, as it were,
insofar as they are available in an open prison, 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. So it is not just the work which can be
done with the prisoner in the open prison, which is more natural,
as it were, but also that the prisoner is more tested in the less
controlled the environment in which he is living and working.
Q351 Sammy Wilson: Since you have
cases referred to you about six months before they have come to
the end of the tariff, if at that stage they still have not moved
into an open prison you are still assessing them within the normal
prison environment?
Mr Smith: One is required to assess
them and to, as it were, start from scratch in that assessment.
One would readily come to the conclusion that it would be very
difficult for them to move from the controlled situation in prison—heavily
controlled in the model you pose—into freedom, liberty,
because they would all of a sudden be faced with a whole lot of
stresses and strains that they would have little experience of
and little opportunity to learn to cope with. But that is not
the model that we would expect to be confronted with. It may be
that there are prisoners who can have no work done with them and
even if there was an open prison they would not be deemed suitable
to go to the open prison. When those prisoners come to us, clearly
there are problems involved with those prisoners about directing
their release, but the ideal situation is that they move through
the system, they address their offending and when they finally
come to us we will be in a position to make a judgment that these
prisoners may well be fit for release.
Q352 Sammy Wilson: Can I just ask
one question about the separated prisoners? You indicated it was
difficult to make an assessment or to engage with prisoners who
are separated because they were not part of the normal prison
regime. Is there not also a difficulty, though, especially where
there are deep animosities between different paramilitary groups
in the prison, where if the prisoners were actually put together
it may be even more difficult to engage, because we have seen
in the past that when groups have not been separated and put in
prison there has been all sorts of violence, et cetera, and perhaps
there has been even more of a tendency for people to stay together
within certain groups for their own safety?
Mr Smith: We as a group do not
have any view on the validity of the separated prisoners scheme
or regime. All we are saying is that this is the difficulty which
it presents us with in assessing those prisoners who are life
sentence prisoners when it comes to the appropriate time for them
to be considered for release. We do not go further than that.
Q353 Mr Murphy: Can I ask you something
which actually follows on from Mr Wilson's last point? If you
could explain for me, Mr Smith, the difference between the treatment
of the separated lifer and an ordinary lifer when it comes to
the possibility of parole?
Mr Smith: The ordinary lifer engages
with the prison staff and the prison governors and receives assistance,
and indeed almost invariably welcomes assistance. Whether the
prisoner is capable actually of making the best advantage of that
assistance is another matter. Also, that prisoner engages with
probation, and again the assistance which is available from probation
that prisoner can take advantage of as best he or she can. The
difficulty with the separated prisoners is that they do not engage
in the conventional way with either the prison staff or the Probation
Service and therefore they cannot take advantage of those facilities.
A lot of the rehabilitative work is provided by way of group activities
and it is extremely difficult to provide group activities when
you are dealing with a very small number of prisoners, even if
they were prepared to involve themselves. Some of them indicate
that they would be prepared to involve themselves, but there is
a certain inconsistency with being there because you have paramilitary
associations that you are still signalling you have some degree
of adherence to and then addressing your offending in the way
which is expected of all of other prisoners who are life sentence
prisoners.
Q354 Mr Murphy: Is it possible, therefore,
for a separated lifer to actually be released into the current
system?
Mr Smith: It is theoretically
possible, yes. I would be saying something that I would view as
unlawful if I were to say that it would not be possible for the
release of a separated prisoner to be directed by the Life Sentence
Review Commissioners.
Q355 Mr Murphy: How would you like
to see that rectified?
Mr Smith: We would wish that prisoners
addressed their offending and took advantage of all the facilities
that are made available by the Prison Service and the Probation
Service by which they can indicate that they will not pose a risk
of serious harm to the public if they were released.
Mrs Rea: This is also in part
an answer to Mr Wilson's previous question. It is important to
note that we actually are beginning to be involved as we have
a role at the three year pre-tariff point. We do not just see
review prisoners six months before release, we are beginning now
to be involved in the three year pre-tariff stage, where one of
a group of Commissioners, the Rehabilitation Group, will actually
go in and interview a prisoner in the prison setting and talk
with that prisoner about the sentence management plan, about what
he has done over the years to confront and deal with his offending
and his plans and wishes for the future. That is presented in
a written report to a different panel of Commissioners and it
is considered in a paper hearing. At that point it is discussed
with the prisoner what he might do in the three years before his
tariff expires in order to continue the process of rehabilitation,
so that there is enough information to decide whether or not there
is risk of harm to the public. Separated prisoners have a difficulty
in that they are not in a position to take up available programmes,
as Mr Smith has said, but they can declare their willingness to
participate in programmes at that point. Also, all prisoners in
those remaining three years need to engage with all the professional
staff, with education, the Probation Service, the psychologists,
the prison staff, so that by the time they do come to the hearing
six months before the expiry of their tariff we have enough information
to make a judgment as to the suitability for release in light
of the risk factors.
Q356 Mr Murphy: Would it be true
to say then that for prisoners seeking separated status, lifers,
it would be almost impossible under the current system for them
to be paroled?
Mrs Rea: If at the three year
pre-tariff point it is indicated that a prisoner needs to either
do a refresher programme or that there is work which has not been
done, I think our concern is that prisoners should have a sentence
management plan. Ideally, we are hoping that the resources will
permit them in the future, if not now, to have a personal officer
who will actually work with that prisoner, to work through the
sentence management plan and engage with whatever professionals
are needed. Prisoners have a range of needs. There may be issues
of drug or alcohol addiction, there may be relationship difficulties,
they may be sex offenders, so there can be tailored programmes
put in place in those remaining three years. Those programmes
are still available. The difficulty is for the prison staff and
the prisoner to engage with those if the status is separated.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Can we move on to Dr McDonnell and healthcare, please.
Q357 Dr McDonnell: I am a little
concerned, in the little bit of exposure I have had through this
inquiry, and indeed through my own general background as a GP,
about the health approach in prisons, particularly the mental
health of prisoners, and I wondered what your feelings were on
that, whether there should be a more strategic approach to health
management, particularly mental health? I am glad Dr Galloway
is here to perhaps maybe comment on that.
Dr Galloway: Yes, there should
be a better strategic approach. As you know, health in prisons
was handed over from the Prison Service to the Health Service
in April this year and one of the trusts, the South Eastern Trust,
has been given responsibility for providing the service and the
Eastern Health Board, prior to the setting up of the single health
authority, has been given responsibility for commissioning it,
but I think there has been a bit of a delay in actually bringing
about the actual operational management of the service. For instance,
I saw recently an ad in the local press for a director of the
Prison Health Service and it is in the process of being appointed
at the moment for the South Eastern Trust. Some of the Commissioners
have already had a meeting with Robin Masefield and his team to
see what the difficulties are. The main difficulty seems to be
resources. They have great difficulty recruiting and retaining,
for instance, forensic psychologists. They have a reasonable cover
for forensic psychiatry, but they have great difficulty getting
cover when people are on leave. The Health Service and the Prison
Service in terms of psychiatry are separate, although Bamford,
for instance, has recommended that there is outreach into the
community and there are community forensic teams. In fact there
are community forensic teams already in existence in some of the
Board areas, the Northern Board, the Southern Board and the Western
Board certainly, and the Eastern Board, but there are still some
issues. For instance, it appears that health has been handed over
to the Health Service from the prisons but psychology has not
and I am interested in trying to work out why that is so. The
Commissioners arranged a meeting with one of the medical officers
in the Department of Health and his team in a few weeks' time
to try and find out what the thinking is from the Health Service's
point of view and what the Department of Health see as being the
future development of health in the prisons. So we are waiting
to have that meeting to see how much more we can learn.
Q358 Dr McDonnell: What would your
key priorities be if there were resources opened up?
Dr Galloway: The main priority
at the moment as far as the prisoner is concerned is psychology.
We have had a number of people who have left the Prison Service
and gone into the Health Service, ironically enough, and they
are having great difficulty in recruiting replacements. Another
difficulty is the scarcity of forensic psychologists, as distinct
from clinical psychologists. I was interested to see recently
that there was an advertisement for psychologists in the Republic
of Ireland Prisons and they were looking for clinical psychologists,
not forensic psychologists. I think this is another issue we would
wish to tease out with the Department. Does it have to be forensic
psychology? Can it be clinical psychology, or is there some way
of marrying the two? Community forensic services are probably
the big priority because one of the difficulties has been that
when prisoners are discharged who picks up responsibility for
them? The general psychiatric service up to now has been fairly
reluctant to do that because they do not feel they have the expertise
or the resources and the Prison Service are not keen because they
feel that they have discharged the person. There is a difficulty
there, so one of my hopes is that the Health Service taking it
over will improve that continuity from prison to community in
terms of health.
Q359 Dr McDonnell: The reality is
that there is no pick-up and the ex-prisoner walks into some GP's
surgery just on an ad hoc basis, is how I perceive it.
Dr Galloway: Well, unless now
with these community forensic teams there is a mechanism whereby
they can be referred directly.
| 
