Examination of Witnesses (Questions 622-639)
MR ROBIN
MASEFIELD, MR
MAX MURRAY
AND MR
MARK MCGUCKIN
24 OCTOBER 2007
Q622 Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Masefield.
Could I welcome you and your colleagues. We have met you all before
and we are delighted to see you again, and thank you very much
for the assistance which you and your department have given to
the Committee in this inquiry into the Prison Service in Northern
Ireland. Thank you, too, for seeing the Committee informally last
week when we were in Belfast briefly. It was very helpful to have
that conversation with you. Mr Murray and Mr McGuckin, you are
both very, very welcome. Is there anything you would like to say
by way of introduction before I begin questioning?
Mr Masefield: I am conscious,
Sir Patrick, that there may be a number of divisions and so we
will try to keep our answers very short. If I could just say three
things very briefly. We are very grateful to the Committee and
all the Members for the time and the commitment they have given
to this important study. I think we have an excellent top team
across the service at the moment and I will try to bring my colleagues
in as is certainly appropriate. Thirdly, I was very struck by
the fact that since the Committee started its work in March I
think quite a lot has happened in terms of the service, a number
of developments in terms of the women moving back in, for example.
I have the new accommodation in Magilligan available for usage.
We have implemented the pay and efficiency package. We have put
out a number of policies for consultation in terms of child protection
and the family strategy is coming shortly. There is the healthcare
transfer in train, and of course it is not just in the Northern
Ireland Prison Service context that it is continually evolving.
I was struck too only today that, as you are no doubt aware, Anne
Owers has published a very important report on mental health,
which is clearly something we will need to have regard to as well
in moving forward.
Q623 Chairman: Of course. Thank you
very much indeed. We greatly appreciate the opportunity of looking
at the prisons under your care and we hope to be in a position
to report certainly well before the end of the year, but it will
be a little later than we indicated last week because our final
session with the Minister has, for reasons completely beyond his
and our control, had to be postponed until 21 November because
of his commitments in Northern Ireland. So we will be having our
final session with him on 21 November and I hope we will then
be reporting to the House well before Christmas, but it will probably
be just into December. Obviously, you will be kept fully informed.
What progress has been made on the options appraisal and when
do you expect to present this and your recommendations to the
Minister?
Mr Masefield: Very steady progress,
Sir Patrick. There is a lot of work involved. There are two main
planks in particular. One was work which was done both with the
Strategic Investment Board and an external American consultant
from Carter Goble Lee, which was a very helpful benchmarking of
our approach to design but also to the usage of prisons and the
regimes, both benchmarking in other jurisdictions in the British
Isles and indeed more widely. Secondly, we have done a lot of
work ourselves to winnow down a wide range of options, including
of course continuing with the rebuild at Magilligan and also potentially
bringing in the possibility of a third site for adult male prisoners.
That work has yet to be finalised. It is making steady progress
and with the slight deferral, for reasons, as you say, outside
your control, of the Minister's evidence to 21 November, I would
very much hope that he will have received a fair amount of documentation
before then on this very subject.
Q624 Chairman: Will he have received
your absolute recommendations by then, or not?
Mr Masefield: I am very hopeful
that he will have done, yes.
Q625 Chairman: Fine. As you know,
we were conscious of the fact that if we were to say something
about the Magilligan issue, we ought to say it sooner rather than
later, and we did send a letter unanimously endorsed by the Committee
to the Minister in August. With his full agreement and permission,
that correspondence was published and you, of course, have seen
it. We were concerned that Magilligan was being ruled out by the
adoption of what appeared to be rather rigid criteria. Could you
set our minds at rest on that and can you assure us that Magilligan
remains an option under consideration?
Mr Masefield: Yes, I can, Sir
Patrick. First of all, the Minister's response was brief in terms
of putting something into the public domain at the time you published
your letter. He did make clear that in reaching the final decision
he would very much want to take account of the Committee's recommendations,
and he is firmly on the record in that regard. In terms of the
criteria which we presented to you earlier in July, we had indeed
identified a range of criteria at that stage in the draft document.
From the operational perspective, the requirement was that it
should be within a 30 mile radius of Belfast. That is very simply
for a number of reasons. Clearly, if it is to serve the courts
we need to be able to unlock the prisoners, feed them and get
them out at a time to avoid keeping the judiciary waiting, and
that places a premium on a location which is fairly convenient
to Belfast. There are also other issues to do with the proximity
of family contacts and working out. However, I would make clear
that that criterion does not apply in the same way if it is not
a remand facility, and of course Magilligan has never been a remand
facility in that regard so it does not directly bite to that extent
on the future of Magilligan as a custodial prison for sentenced
prisoners.
Q626 Chairman: You will, of course,
have seen the Committee's comments that to develop that site could
be cost-effective and also phased over a period, and you would
presumably concede that those are valid observations?
Mr Masefield: Certainly on the
question of costs, that is something we are looking at at this
stage, which is in effect a strategic business case. There is
a number of phases that one would need to go through in line with
OGC procedures. The next one thereafter would be an outline business
case when we get a better handle on the precise costs and weighing
up those options, but certainly that is likely to be a factor,
absolutely.
Q627 Chairman: And the phasing, of
course, is very valid.
Mr Masefield: It has attraction
as well in terms of trying to meet, as best we can, the prisoner
population, which we anticipate will continue increasing, albeit
inevitably at a slightly hard to predict rate.
Chairman: Of course. Perhaps I can pass
over to my colleague, Gregory Campbell, who has a certain interest
to declare in this matter!
Q628 Mr Campbell: Thank you, Chairman.
Just on the phasing, Mr Masefield, if costing was a huge factor,
which one would assume it would be, and phasing was an option,
does that not virtually of the essence take it to Magilligan only?
Mr Masefield: It would certainly
be a very relevant factor, if I can put it in those terms. In
terms of the context of the costing, clearly the acquisition of
a site would be an important other element if we were to look
for another location, and that would be likely to be, but not
inevitably, a significant additional expense. You are absolutely
right. The other factor is, however, trying to get a handle on
the phasing and the population demand as it will increase. I am
very conscious that even if one looks with improved approaches
to procurement, improved methods of construction, and certainly
anticipating an element of private sector involvement in the construction
phase, most of that work is likely to come outside the current
Comprehensive Spending Review period, in other words the principal
funding would be needed more than three years from now. So that
is a factor which will need to play into the costing in the longer
term.
Q629 Mr Campbell: The Life Sentence
Review Commissioners are concerned about life sentence prisoners
and the regime as it affects them. How do you see the impinging
upon any recommendation you would make to the Minister in the
next few weeks?
Mr Masefield: It certainly could
have a relevance. We conducted a very thorough internal review
of life sentence prisoners under Max Murray's leadership about
two years ago. It was, I think, published and one of the things
we identified clearly there, I think best practice in line with
approaches in England and Wales, is that there are really three
stages in the life sentence prisoner's life, as it were. The first
period, which perhaps is around the first five years, is when
they are coming to terms with the sentence. There is then the
latter period in the run-up to the tariff, maybe three years or
so, up to the final period when one is looking to assist really
to have the individual returned to the community, working out
schemes and other programmes, and making sure those are completed.
Then there is a period in the middle of the sentence and what
we are doing at the moment is seeking to make greater usage of
two houses in the Maghaberry site, which I think the Committee
saw in Mourne House, both Wilson and Martin. We now have 32 life
sentence prisoners in there and that is working, I think, very
effectively. One of the things we have been doing very carefully—and
I touched on this briefly, I think, in formal evidence earlier
this month—is whether there is a sufficient critical mass
of life sentence prisoners we could identify at perhaps that second
stage of the sentence journey who would be appropriate for going
to Magilligan, and that will play a part in the consideration
of the wider options to which you have referred. I do not know
whether Max would like to add anything to that.
Mr Murray: No. The work is ongoing
as we speak. We have 173 lifers presently in the Northern Ireland
system, which is quite a significant increase. When you take out
the ones who are already in accommodation in Wilson House and
Martin House, those who are held by mental health orders, those
who are down at the Prisoner Assessment Unit in Belfast, those
on phase 3 release in the community, it actually reduces the pool
who would be available to go to a low risk supervision unit at
Magilligan. It leaves a very small pool, but we are looking at
that at the moment and certainly there is no reason why lifers
could not go and be facilitated in Magilligan. We feel it needs
to be a unit as opposed to individuals mixing in the general population
in the prison.
Q630 Mr Campbell: Just one final
question, on the risk assessment of prisoners. It appears you
have had a reclassification, which looks as if it has had a very
dramatic effect, particularly on the numbers who are categorised
as medium or low risk. Can you explain how that can work?
Mr Masefield: Yes, surely, and
I think it is a two part answer. It is yes and no, as it were.
Q631 Mr Campbell: I thought it might
be!
Mr Masefield: It was something
that was very clear we needed to do on my arrival because it was
an area that we had not probably paid as much attention to for
a number of years as we might and we had a disproportionate bulge
in the middle with 90% or so of the prisoners categorised as medium
risk, a very small number in this low risk, around 20 or so, and
then 150 or so classified as high risk. We have given a lot of
thought to that and we worked out our criteria for assessing them
and the conclusion we came to comparatively recently, having toyed
with the idea of categorising them as high, medium, low, and then
we got into low one and low two, was that actually the best thing
to do was to broadly fall in line with the England and Wales classification.
That has many read-across advantages. So we are introducing the
system in the very near future, early in November, based on categories
A, B, C and D. The very interesting thing is that that tallies
with our own work we have been doing in the lead-up period identifying
just over 50% of our prisoners, as it were low on the categorisation
we were thinking about, but we will now introduce those split
across the category C/D as in the English population. Both of
us have about 50% in categories C and D and about 10% in category
D, which is basically that you can hold them in open conditions,
without a wall, without a fence, because at that stage they are
likely to go back into the community and there is no incentive
to escape. The category Cs are the biggest single components in
England and Wales, over 40%, and they are held in a prison with
a fence, or in some cases certainly a wall outside it, but they
do not have the concerted intention of escaping and a determination
to do that. That would very much tie in with the approach we have.
Magilligan is currently a bit on the cusp, it is a category B/C
equivalent, and 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.
Q632 Mr Campbell: You said the C/D
was roughly 60%, between C and D?
Mr Masefield: Yes. The As would
be about 10%, which again would roughly correlate with the English
experience, and the Bs would be 30% or so therefore.
Mr Campbell: Thank you.
Q633 Lady Hermon: So presumably you
would seek the reclassification of the prisoners before you make
the decision as to where the new prison should be located? It
does impinge, one on the other?
Mr Masefield: No, Lady Hermon.
I cannot guarantee that it would be actually completed because
what we need to do for every single prisoner in the system, of
whom there are 1505 today, is to work through precisely where
they are, but we have already done the work to give ourselves
a very clear feel for the overall proportions as we go forward.
Q634 Chairman: Can you give the Committee
any indication as to whether you are thinking of a third site?
Mr Masefield: We have, I think,
made five assessments on different bases of the potential projected
prisoner population in about 15 years' time, around the 2020/2022
mark, and in all of those we now think that the total population
will be of the order of 2,500 or maybe one or two hundred above
that, of whom perhaps about 100 or 150 by that stage might have
come through from the public protection sentences which we are
anticipating will be introduced through the sentencing framework
review in the Criminal Justice Order. Again, the majority of those
will be adult male prisoners and given both the long lead time
for planning, getting planning permission and working through
actually having the prison, as it were, completed, especially
if it were to be a new site, which is probably a minimum of seven
to eight years from decision, it feels to us that there is probably
a case at this stage for at least trying to get some clarity on
whether it is likely that we will require a third adult male prison
around that time. But potentially we do not need to make a final
decision on that for perhaps two or three years.
Sammy Wilson: What are those figures
based on that jump from 1800 at present, or 1700 at present -
Q635 Chairman: 1500 at present, surely?
Mr Masefield: 1505 at the moment,
yes.
Q636 Sammy Wilson: So a 400% increase?
Mr Masefield: It is a variety
of factors. Quite largely, of course, it is based on the analysis
of the numbers that we imprison in Northern Ireland compared with
England, Wales and Scotland. Our current proportion is 82 out
of 100,000 of the population. In Wales it is over 148 and in Scotland
it is 140 or so. Both of them are projecting significant increases,
I think the English going up to 161, which is the figure in about
five years. They are anticipating they will need another 10,000
places in England. Where does it come from? It is a variety of
features. It is clearly the changes in the legislation, it is
the sentencing patterns of the judiciary, it is a reflection of
society and it is aspects such as drugs becoming more prevalent.
I think there is a wide range of factors which are potentially
pointers towards that outcome. It is not something necessarily
we would wish, to broaden our client base, as it were, and clearly
it carries major financial and economic consequences, but equally
we have to plan ahead and make sure that accommodation is available
when it is required.
Q637 Chairman: At a time when people
are thinking more and more of alternatives to prison, it is a
fairly alarming prediction and I think the Committee will want
to reflect very carefully on what you have said. Could I move
you on to the question of women, because there are various subjects
which have come up repeatedly in our inquiry, in our visits and
in both our formal and informal evidence sessions. One of them
has been the issue of Magilligan, of course, and the prison estate,
and we have touched on that and perhaps we will return to it later.
The other has been women. Last week, after we had seen you, the
Committee went to the Republic and we went to Dublin first and
we went to the Dochas Centre. Are you familiar with that?
Mr Masefield: Yes, Max and myself
have been there.
Q638 Chairman: We were very, very
impressed by the regime, the facilities, really everything about
it. Would you agree with us that we were right to be impressed?
Mr Masefield: I would, Sir Patrick.
We, too, were impressed on our visit and I am glad to report that
further arrangements are being taken forward in two regards. One
is to set up—and I think it is an informal term—a
twinning arrangement, as it were, between Hydebank Wood, the women's
prison facility there, and the Dochas Centre, which I think is
excellent. We have had the Governor up from Dochas and she spent
a day in Hydebank Wood, and already there are opportunities for
staff secondment. Isobel Millar, the women's Governor in Hydebank
Wood, has been down to the Dochas Centre since then. We are looking,
for example, at sharing gender-specific training, which will play
directly into the regime, and there are one or two developments
we have in hand which similarly they might find it valuable to
look at, so we are certainly looking to build on that.
Q639 Chairman: We were impressed
by Ash House as a place and the actual physical facilities within
it, but there has been repeated concern expressed to this Committee
on its sharing a site with the young offenders. We would like
your views on whether or not you feel that women can be adequately
housed with the quality of housing at Ash House but physically
separated by a wall or some other means, or whether to give them
that quality they need to be moved to another site. What are your
thoughts on that?
Mr Masefield: A number, if I may.
First of all, I do not think any of us would regard Ash House
as the ideal long-term location for the women prisoners and we
are on the record, certainly as the top management team in the
Prison Service, as saying that. On the other hand, there are issues
here and we had a very interesting visit from Mike Ewart, who
is my opposite number in the Scottish Prison Service, again earlier
this month, I think. He has, if you like, the opposite problem,
he was confiding in us. He has one big prison, Cornton Vale, with
600 women inmates. It has developed much in recent years, and
again we would have some links with them and we will be making
further visits to look at that in addition, but he has the issue
that that is too far for many of his clients and visitors and
he is now wondering whether perhaps an approach which allows for
a degree of smaller women's centres spread more widely across
different parts of Scotland might be an approach. It is too early
to see whether that will lead him down the road towards co-location,
but it is an interesting approach towards a challenge of a slightly
different sort. In terms of the short-term, we are doing what
we can with Governor Treacy and his colleagues. There is a number
of steps there to give the women a greater degree of separation
than you saw certainly on your earlier visit. But back in Ash
House, as you say, physically they are towards one side of the
site. On Monday of last week—it is a small point but a significant
one—we changed the horticulture facilities around in the
gardens so that the women now can move unescorted immediately
to the garden facility, which is an important opportunity for
work and development, immediately adjacent to Ash House. We are
now looking at erecting a fence—and this is not a five metre
high barbed wire erection, it is something appropriate—that
would give them, again, a greater degree of separation, distinctness,
and would allow again for a greater freedom of movement from within
that area. That potentially would be in place before Christmas.
The tender is out and bids have been received to erect their own
dedicated reception facility, which would include their own video
links and their own drug testing facility, and work has already
started—again I have met the contractors on site last week—to
create a degree of separation within the healthcare facilities
so that the women will have their own side of that. In other words,
we are continuing to take a number of practical steps to try to
emphasise the differentiation within the prison. Finally, if I
may, in the longer term Paul Goggins has also announced that he
has commissioned us to take forward a holistic strategy for women
by early in the New Year. The target I have set myself is the
end of February and Mary Lemon, who is with us today as head of
our Operational Policy Branch, is currently charged with leading
the development of the strategy. But that, too, will also include
an element of an options appraisal in the long-term for the estate
because we wish to try to identify at this stage, without getting
too far into the detailed costings, what a future development
might look like for the women's prison.
|
