Northern Ireland Prison Service Report 2007 to 2008

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Northern Ireland Prison Service Report 2007 to 2008

• Topics: International

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

House of Commons
Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee

The Northern Ireland
Prison Service
First Report of Session 2007–08
Volume I

EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part,
in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

HC 118

House of Commons
Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee

The Northern Ireland
Prison Service
First Report of Session 2007–08
Volume I
Report, together with formal minutes
Ordered by The House of Commons
to be printed 5 December 2007

EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part,
in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

HC 118
Incorporating HC 520-i to ix, Session 2006-07
Published on 12 December 2007
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£0.00

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons
to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Northern Ireland
Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor);
and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of
the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the
drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel).
Current membership
Sir Patrick Cormack MP (Conservative, South Staffordshire) (Chairman)
Mr David Anderson MP (Labour, Blaydon)
Mr Gregory Campbell MP (Democratic Unionist Party, East Londonderry)
Rosie Cooper MP (Labour, West Lancashire)
Mr Christopher Fraser MP (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
Mr John Grogan MP (Labour, Selby)
Mr Stephen Hepburn MP (Labour, Jarrow)
Lady Hermon MP (Ulster Unionist Party, North Down)
Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall)
Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP (SDLP, Belfast South)
Mr Denis Murphy MP (Labour, Wansbeck)
Mr Stephen Pound MP (Labour, Ealing North)
Mr Sammy Wilson MP (Democratic Unionist Party, East Antrim)
John Battle MP (Labour, Leeds West) was a member of the Committee during
this inquiry.
Powers
The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No
152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publication
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press
notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/niacom. A list of Reports of
the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Steve Priestley (Clerk), Judy Goodall
(Inquiry Manager), Duma Langton (Committee Assistant), Becky Crew
(Secretary), Karen Watling (Secretary), Becky Jones (Media Officer) and Jim
Lawford (Senior Office Clerk).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Northern Ireland
Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The
telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2173/1341; the Committee’s
email address is northircom@parliament.uk

1
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Contents
Report

Page

Conclusions and recommendations

Introduction

The Prison Estate
Adequacy of the existing prison estate
Sentencing and the courts
Estate strategy

11
11
15
18

Women prisoners

Separation of paramilitary prisoners

Health

Transfer of responsibility for prison healthcare
Mental health services
Prisoners with personality disorders
Secure hospitals in Northern Ireland

The prison regime
Education, training and employment
The role of education, training and employment in effective resettlement
Level of provision
Strategic approach and evaluation
Security led culture
Vulnerable prisoners

Accountability
Prison inspections
Prisoner complaints
The Prisoner Ombudsman
Independent monitoring boards

Efficiency

37
39
41
44

45
45
45
46
48
51
52

53
53
55
55
57

Formal minutes

Witnesses

List of written evidence

List of unprinted evidence

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

3
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Conclusions and recommendations
1.

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. (Paragraph 22)

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. (Paragraph 28)

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.. The Minister told us that
“it is quite preposterous that so many fine defaulters occupy places in the Northern
Ireland prison system”. 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.
(Paragraph 37)

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. (Paragraph 39)

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.
(Paragraph 40)

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

4
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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. (Paragraph 58)
7.

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. (Paragraph 59)

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.
(Paragraph 61)

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 longsentenced 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. (Paragraph 62)

10.

We conclude that the development of such basic self management skills forms an
important basis for effective resettlement. We do not believe that prisoners should
ever be subject to any overly restrictive regime unless it can be justified on security
grounds. The limitations of the current women’s regime at Hydebank Wood, which
largely occur because of the shared site, have a negative impact on the women’s
resettlement. (Paragraph 69)

11.

Prisoners in Northern Ireland deserve the best possible opportunities to rejoin
society on their release as self-sufficient members of the community, and preparation
for employment is a key aspect of that process. We recommend that the prison
service provides a wider range of vocational training, appropriate to the needs of
women prisoners. (Paragraph 72)

12.

Whilst we accept that these important issues at Hydebank Wood are recognised by
the prison service, we believe that it is of paramount importance that urgent
attention be given to addressing the issues of the shared visits room, and, even more,
the health care centre by seeking to ensure that whenever possible they are not used
at the same time by women prisoners and male young offenders. We accept that
prison staff have made every effort to make the best of less than ideal
accommodation, and have responded well to specific difficulties. However, further
investment in short term solutions is not an adequate response to a situation which
cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. (Paragraph 76)

5
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

13.

We commend the prison service, particularly the staff at Hydebank Wood, for their
efforts to provide a dignified, constructive and therapeutic regime for women
prisoners in the face of repeated criticisms. We conclude that these efforts can only
have limited results as long as the women continue to share a site with young
offenders, although we accept that the land owned by the prison service at Hydebank
Wood site is large enough for separate facilities to be provided there. (Paragraph 78)

14.

We are convinced that there is a pressing need for a self contained women’s prison
facility in Northern Ireland. Some witnesses have suggested that it might be possible
to do this at or adjacent to the Hydebank Wood estate. We are disappointed that the
prison service did not include the women’s needs in its prison estate options
appraisal or appear to give serious consideration to this possibility. We regard this as
a missed opportunity. However we are encouraged by Mr Goggins’ statement that he
has asked for a women’s strategy and plans for a women’s facility to be developed
during 2008. We recommend that the Minister ensure that the development of plans
and costings for a discrete women’s facility, and a timetable for implementing the
plans, are treated as a high priority. (Paragraph 81)

15.

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. (Paragraph 96)

16.

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.
(Paragraph 99)

17.

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. (Paragraph 103)

18.

We note that there are areas of prison healthcare which require improvement. We
are concerned about the delays in effecting the transfer of responsibility for prison
healthcare to the health service. We believe this delay could create staffing difficulties
and confusion over lines of responsibility. We welcome the transfer and urge the
Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that it is completed in the
very near future. (Paragraph 110)

19.

Whilst we completely accept that the safety of the law abiding population must be of
paramount concern, we note that the large number of prisoners with personality
disorders in Northern Ireland prisons presents a challenge for the prison service, in
terms of developing a regime to manage their behaviour, providing appropriate care

6
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

We conclude that the lack of a high security hospital facility in Northern Ireland
places a strain on the prison service. The need for remand prisoners, including those
who are suffering from serious mental illness, to remain within Northern Ireland
means that the prison service has no option but to accommodate such prisoners even
though it is not equipped to provide appropriate care. We recommend that the
prison service and the health service jointly discuss with the Scottish Executive and
the government of the Republic of Ireland the possibilities of sharing secure hospital
facilities. Before coming to a conclusion, it should also consider the provision of a
small facility either at HMP Maghaberry or at Hydebank Wood, which is adjacent to
the Knockbracken Healthcare Park. (Paragraph 128)

21.

We commend the examples of good resettlement practice we saw in all of the prison
establishments we visited. We conclude that what is needed now is a more strategic
approach towards matching education, work and training provision with prisoners’
needs, more focus on providing skills which will enable prisoners to secure
employment and a programme of evaluation to assess which programmes are most
effective. We support the Chief Inspector’s recommendation that a personal officer
scheme, or its equivalent, is introduced as a matter of priority, so as to ensure a better
strategic match between resettlement activities and each prisoner’s needs, and to
encourage prisoners to remain committed to their individual resettlement plan.
(Paragraph 145)

22.

We strongly recommend that the Northern Ireland Prison Service continues with its
drive to introduce a culture which encourages prison officers to engage with
prisoners to a greater extent and to view their role as one of facilitating resettlement,
rather than solely enforcing security. (Paragraph 149)

23.

We do not believe that the Northern Ireland Prison Service has a sufficiently clear
strategy on the integration of vulnerable prisoners. There is no clear statement as to
what the policy is on integration of vulnerable prisoners and we recommend that one
is made by the prison service. We conclude that there is a marked difference between
the Northern Ireland Prison Service approach and those of the prison services in the
Republic of Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. We recommend that the
Northern Ireland Prison Service reviews its policy and practices relating to
vulnerable prisoners in order to ensure that they provide effective protection from
bullying and victimisation. (Paragraph 153)

7
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

24.

We conclude that the inspection arrangements of Northern Ireland prisons are
operating satisfactorily and are pleased to note that Criminal Justice Inspection
Northern Ireland has established effective working relationships with the Northern
Ireland Prison Service and with other inspection agencies. (Paragraph 160)

25.

We are pleased to note that the Prisoner Ombudsman’s Office has become well
established in Northern Ireland and that it has developed good working relationships
with the prison service and with each prison establishment. We believe that, at a
suitable opportunity, the role of the Office should be placed on a statutory footing.
We are glad that arrangements are now underway to do so via amendments to the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. We support the proposal from PBNI that
there should be a pilot period of a year or so during which the Ombudsman deals
with probation complaints, and recommend that this pilot should lead to the
development of longer term arrangements for handling of probation complaints. We
call on the Northern Ireland Prison Service and DHSSPS to ensure that future
arrangements for handling prisoner complaints about healthcare are carefully
defined and clearly communicated to prisoners. (Paragraph 164)

26.

We commend the work of the Independent Monitoring Boards and acknowledge
gratefully the contribution made by those who offer their time on a voluntary basis.
We support the IMBs’ request to promote their role and underline their
independence from the Prisoner Ombudsman’s Office. We recommend that the
development of a protocol on working arrangements between the two bodies is
treated as a priority. (Paragraph 168)

27.

We commend the work that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is doing to improve
the efficiency of the prison estate and to reduce the cost per prisoner place. The
implementation of efficiency measures has not been easy for either management or
prison staff. (Paragraph 185)

28.

However, we also conclude that the prison service is hampered by the innate
inefficiency of its buildings. In particular the inappropriate use of high security
accommodation at Maghaberry for low security prisoners, and the separated regime
for some paramilitary prisoners, increase costs. We are accordingly convinced that
capital investment is required to make the Northern Ireland Prison Service a truly
first class prison service and to release greater long-term efficiency savings.
(Paragraph 186)

29.

The running costs of a prison estate in which low security prisoners were kept in low
security accommodation would be much lower than the current running costs. We
recommend that, rather than exclusively focussing on the worthy discipline of cost
per prisoner place, the Northern Ireland Prison Service estimate the cost of providing
the additional infrastructure that we recommend in Chapter 2, and that it estimate
the efficiency savings that would accrue. We suggest that it would then be well placed
to put the case for additional capital investment being made outside the
Comprehensive Spending Review envelope. We believe that such investment would
lead to substantial savings in the long run. (Paragraph 187)

8
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

30.

We question whether it is appropriate to continue to set a target of reducing the cost
per prisoner place. Our predecessor Committee recommended in 2004 that this
target be abandoned for the foreseeable future and we are disappointed that this
recommendation was not accepted. At that time, the Government undertook to
“seek the most useful way to present the extra costs of separation” and, at the very
least, we believe that the figure used for measuring the cost per prisoner place should
be one which excludes the costs of running the separated regime. (Paragraph 188)

31.

The Northern Ireland Prison Service accommodates a disproportionate number of
remand prisoners. We recommend that the same political priority be placed on
speeding up the process of bringing cases to trial as currently exists with regard to
reducing the cost per prisoner place. (Paragraph 189)

9
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

1 Introduction
1. We start from the premise that prisoners are sent to prison as punishment for crimes
that they have committed and for which they have been duly convicted in the courts. We
believe that it is the job of a prison service to do all in its power to hold safely and securely,
prisoners who have been committed to its care, but also in a way that supports their
rehabilitation as useful members of society, and equips them to live constructive and lawabiding lives on their release.
2. The Northern Ireland Prison Service is an executive agency of the Northern Ireland
Office, with three operational establishments. HMP Maghaberry is a high security prison
for sentenced and remand male prisoners, with separated facilities for some loyalist and
some republican paramilitary prisoners. HMP Magilligan is a medium security prison for
adult men, and HMP and YOC Hydebank Wood is both the only prison for female
offenders in Northern Ireland and a medium to low security young offenders centre and
prison for male remand prisoners and sentenced young offenders.
3. With only around 1500 prisoners, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is a very small
prison service. Within an existing estate of only three prisons, it has to cater for all security
categories of prisoners, sentenced and remand, male and female with the added
complication of a separated regime for certain paramilitary prisoners in HMP Maghaberry.
4. The Committee decided on 14 March 2007 to undertake an inquiry into the Northern
Ireland Prison Service, specifically to examine
the operation of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, in particular to examine
whether the existing prison estate is adequate and appropriate for the secure
accommodation of Northern Ireland’s prisoners, and whether the Prison Service
appropriately meets the health and education and training needs of prisoners.
In undertaking this inquiry, we have not set out to duplicate the more detailed work of the
Inspectors or of the Prisoner Ombudsman, but rather to take a broader strategic view
which we hope will enable the prison service to move forward constructively, in
anticipation of the future transfer of responsibility for criminal justice to the Northern
Ireland Assembly.
5. During the course of the inquiry, the Committee took formal evidence from Paul
Goggins, MP, Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office with responsibility for
prisons, Mr Robin Masefield, Director of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, Ms Anne
Owers, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMIP), Mr Kit Chivers, Chief Inspector of
Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI), the Prison Governors’ Association,
Mr Brian Coulter, the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Prison Officers’
Association, the Northern Ireland Probation Board, the Northern Ireland Association for
the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), the Life Sentence Review
Commissioners,1 the Chairmen of the three Independent Monitoring Boards, the Northern
1

The Life Sentence Review Commissioners will be renamed the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland by the
Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2007

10
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Ireland Human Rights Commission and Baroness Corston, author of a Review of Women
with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system of England and Wales.2
6. In connection with our scrutiny of health provision for prisoners, we took evidence in
Belfast from Dr Philip McClements, the Northern Ireland Prison Service Associate
Director for Healthcare, Professor Roy McClelland, Emeritus Professor of Mental Health,
Queen’s University Belfast and chairman of the Bamford Review of mental health in
Northern Ireland, and Dr Ian Bownes, a consultant forensic psychiatrist.
7. We met the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Health, Social Services and
Public Safety in Parliament Buildings in Stormont to discuss the process of the transfer of
responsibility for prison healthcare from the Northern Ireland Prison Service to the
Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We discuss this issue in Chapter
5. We are grateful to Iris Robinson MLA MP, Chairman of the Assembly Committee and
her colleagues for welcoming us to Parliament Buildings.
8. During our inquiry, the Committee visited each of the establishments in the Northern
Ireland Prison Service, meeting prisoners and staff in April 2007 at the Prisoner
Assessment Unit in Crumlin Road, 3 Belfast before visiting HMP Magilligan and the
accommodation for women prisoners at Ash House in HMP Hydebank Wood. The
Committee visited HMP Maghaberry and the accommodation for male young offenders at
YOC Hydebank Wood in July 2007. The Committee also visited the Dochas Centre for
women prisoners and Wheatfield Prison in the Republic of Ireland and HMP Belmarsh in
London to compare practices and operations with the Northern Ireland Prison Service. We
are grateful to the Governors of each of the prisons that we visited in Northern Ireland,
England and the Republic of Ireland for welcoming the Committee to their establishments.
9. We give credit to all those volunteers who work within the prison service and offer our
warmest thanks to them for their immense contribution.
10. The Committee is grateful to all of those who have assisted us in our inquiry and to
Professor Sir Anthony Bottoms, of the Universities of Cambridge and Sheffield who has
acted as an adviser to the Committee throughout.
11. As Northern Ireland continues the process of normalisation after the years of the
Troubles, and the Northern Ireland Assembly considers whether the Assembly and
Executive are ready to take on functions in policing and criminal justice currently reserved
to the Northern Ireland Office, we believe there is a historic opportunity for the prison
service to design an up to date prison estate. Such a design would keep prisoners securely
within its institutions but also help to develop them as individuals who are ready, where
appropriate, to return to society and lead valuable and worthwhile lives.
12. Mr Finlay Spratt, Branch Chairman of the Prison Officers Association (Northern
Ireland), in giving evidence to the Committee, asserted that over the years of the Troubles,
prison staff were the “forgotten members of the security services”. He pointed out that a

The Corston Report. A report by Baroness Jean Corston of a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the
criminal justice system. Home Office. March 2006.

Which is formally part of the establishment of HMP Maghaberry although located away from the site.

11
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

total of 29 prison staff were murdered by paramilitaries during this period and we
acknowledge their sacrifice with gratitude. The prison service and its staff are now moving
from the security dominated approach that was necessary during the Troubles, although
constant vigilance on security issues is still necessary. Northern Ireland has an expensive
prison service, with a cost per prisoner place considerably in excess of rates in the rest of
the United Kingdom. This cost is, to a large degree, a legacy of the Troubles but it also
reflects the costs which are an inevitable feature of a small and over-stretched estate. If the
prison service is to achieve efficiency savings, we are convinced that significant capital
investment is required.

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

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

Ev 188

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.

Q 634

Ev 128

Ev 130

12
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Q 428

Q 523

Qq 436, 438

Q 165

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

Q 76

Q 196

Q 201

13
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Q 293

Q 294

Northern Ireland Office press notice 9 October 2007

Ev 169

14
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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.

Q 268

Q 423

Ev 149

Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, paragraphs 5.8 – 5.10

Ibid. paragraph 5.12

15
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Q 631

Ev 137

Qq 333, 343

16
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Q 342

Q 296

Q 318

Northern Ireland Office press notice 5 November 2007

Q 679

Ev 141

Ev 142

17
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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 200650 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

Ev 177; UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 94.

Q 680

Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2005, Table 7.1 p71 (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/2006) and
Northern Ireland Prison Service, Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07, HC 863, Appendix 3 p29.

Q 680

HMIP Annual Report 2006-07 p14

The Northern Ireland Prison Population in 2006, Northern Ireland Office Research and Statistical Bulletin 4/2007.

Ev 189

18
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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.

Q 421

Qq 684, 685

19
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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 offenders55 - 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
54

Q 270

Q 333

Q 336

20
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Q 350

[2007] EWHC 1835 (Admin)

[2007] EWHC 2020 (Admin)

Ev 130

Qq 686, 687

21
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Eg HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Magilligan Prison 10-19 May 2006

Ev 167

Q 171

Ev 179

Qq 299, 300

22
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Qq 197- 200

Qq 427, 428

Ev 153

Ev 152

23
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

Q 625

24
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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.

3 Women prisoners
63. All women prisoners in Northern Ireland are accommodated at Hydebank Wood, a
prison and young offenders’ facility which opened in 1979. We made two visits to
Hydebank Wood, in April and July 2007. Women prisoners are accommodated in Ash
House, one of six blocks on the site. The other blocks house about 250 male young
offenders, aged mainly between 17 and 23. The population of women prisoners is small,
but includes a broad age range (at times from as young as 17 to over 70 years old) with a
complex mix of offences and sentences. In April 2007 there were 23 sentenced prisoners
and 15 on remand, with offences ranging from murder to possession of drugs and
disorderly behaviour. Sentences have ranged from a few days to life imprisonment. The
Probation Board Northern Ireland (PBNI) told us that research had shown that around 50
per cent of the women in Hydebank Wood had no previous convictions.74 Mental health is
a major issue; at the time of our visit, 25 of the 38 women were receiving some form of
mental health support. There is no separation at Hydebank Wood on the basis of
paramilitary allegiance and during the period of our inquiry, there were no women in the
prison system who had applied to move to separated conditions.
64. Prior to June 2004, women prisoners were accommodated at Mourne House, a self
contained facility adjacent to HMP Maghaberry. Mourne House had capacity for 56
women prisoners and was modelled on the concept of smaller residential units found at
Cornton Vale in Scotland. However, a series of troubling events took place at Mourne
House, including two serious suicide attempts, a hunger strike involving a Republican
woman prisoner and the suspension and eventual dismissal of prison officers allegedly
engaged in ‘inappropriate relationships’ with women prisoners. In 2002, HMIP inspected
Mourne House and made nearly 50 recommendations, two of which were that it should
become a discrete women’s facility, managed separately from the men’s prison; and that
the Northern Ireland Prison Service should draw up a policy and strategic plan for the
treatment of women in custody. However, these recommendations were not acted upon.
HMIP later stated that “Virtually none of our recommendations, including those (two)

Q 284

25
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

fundamental ones, were put into effect. Indeed, the treatment of and conditions for women
at Mourne House became worse …”.75 Instead, in response to the criticisms of Mourne
House, the prison service took the decision to move women prisoners to Hydebank Wood
in June 2004. This decision was seen as a mistake by, among others, CJINI/HMIP, who did
not believe that the move of women away from a self-contained women’s facility to a site
shared by male young offenders was appropriate. It undertook a short, unannounced
inspection of the Hydebank Wood women’s unit in November 2004 and concluded that:
This inspection found that relationships between staff and prisoners had improved
since the move from Mourne House… But the report records some significant
concerns: about safety … and about the extent to which Ash House can provide a
suitable environment for women… This is not primarily the fault of staff and
managers … It was the consequence of a poorly implemented decision to move
women from a purpose-built environment, which was not being managed or
operated as it should have been, to a much less suitable facility…. [The Northern
Ireland Prison Service] needs to plan for a discrete and suitable separate location in
which [women] can be held safely and purposefully.76
65. In his evidence to the Committee, Mr Kit Chivers confirmed to us that he still held the
view that Hydebank Wood should again become a dedicated site for male young offenders
and that there should also be a separate facility which could focus on the specific needs of
women:
I think what we need to think of, whenever it can be afforded, is a separate women’s
facility on a different site outside the perimeter of Hydebank Wood at least, so that
there is clear segregation.77
66. The view that women prisoners need a separate facility was shared by many of our
witnesses. For example, the Prison Governors Association described it as “inappropriate”
for women and young offenders to share the same site,78 the POA stated that it was
“essential” that male and female prisoners should be located on separate sites79 and the
PBNI that Hydebank Wood was not “an appropriate location for female offenders if … the
Northern Ireland criminal justice system is to seriously, positively, innovatively and
creatively engage with female offenders to reduce re-offending”.
67. The women at Hydebank Wood are located in a separate accommodation block, Ash
House, but most of the other facilities, such as the visitor area, the health centre and the
education centre are also used by the young offenders. Because the site is shared between
female prisoners and male young offenders, the women are usually escorted by a prison
officer when moving around the estate and are restricted in their ability to walk freely

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Ash House Hydebank Wood Prison 28-30 November 2004, p5 and A review of nonnatural deaths in Northern Ireland prison service establishments (June 2002-March 2004), November 2005, “The
McClelland Review”, p51

Ibid. pp5-6

Qq 7, 13

Q 85

Q 206

26
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

around the grounds. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has
reported that the shared site has resulted in a more restrictive regime for prisoners:
What we found … was that because the young men and the women were sharing the
campus it meant that there was a more restricted environment and restricted regime,
which did not just affect the women, it also affected the young men. For example, it
meant that even women who would have been risk assessed as not posing a threat
within the site were not able to walk short distances by themselves, they would have
to be accompanied by prison officers. …It also had an impact on the education
centre. Again, teachers said that the movement of male and female prisoners had to
be very choreographed and that that detracted from the kind of educational
environment they sought to provide in the education centre. 80
CJINI/HMIP observed in 2004 that:
Access to exercise in the fresh air was not regularly available and was subject to
cancellation due to lack of staff. Prisoners said that when exercise was offered it was
usually just in the caged yard … which they referred to as the ‘hamster cage’, as this
was more convenient for staff.81
68. Since the 2004 inspection at Hydebank Wood, the prison service has made notable
improvements. The new exercise area for women, adjacent to Ash House, was nearing
completion when we visited, and more recently we heard that the male and female
gardening areas had been exchanged so that the female gardening area was closer to Ash
House. We must record that we were favourably impressed by the quality of
accommodation and facilities at Ash House. However, there is a limit to what can be
achieved within a shared site. When we visited the Dochas Centre (a purpose built, self
contained women’s prison facility) in Dublin, one of the most striking features of the
design was that it enabled prisoners to move freely about the entire women’s estate during
unlock times. This facility was used to encourage them to take personal responsibility for
managing their time, so that they might learn to attend appointments, education and work
on time, as well as enabling them to enjoy fresh air in the garden with minimal supervision.
69. We conclude that the development of such basic self management skills forms an
important basis for effective resettlement. We do not believe that prisoners should ever
be subject to any overly restrictive regime unless it can be justified on security grounds.
The limitations of the current women’s regime at Hydebank Wood, which largely occur
because of the shared site, have a negative impact on the women’s resettlement.
70. The 2004 HMIP inspection report of Hydebank Wood described the education
curriculum as limited and the level of provision inadequate. Access to the library was poor
because staff shortages meant that it was not always possible to take groups across to the
library, but the prisoners spoke highly of the service they received from the qualified

Q 480

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Ash House Hydebank Wood Prison, 28-30 November 2004 p41

27
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

librarian when they were able to get there.82 It also noted that there were insufficient work
opportunities (either employment or vocational training) to meet the objective that
prisoners should be prepared for employment on release.83 Mr Jimmy McClean, Chairman
of the IMB for Hydebank Wood told us that this was still the case:
The vocational training on offer at Hydebank Wood was originally based on the
perceived needs of male young offenders. The arrival of women prisoners did not
change that. Currently the only vocational training open to women at Hydebank
Wood is horticulture. The IMB has suggested other training subjects such as
professional hairdressing, business skills and so on but the small number of potential
trainees is always put forward as the reason for saying that such courses are not
viable84
71. The choice of vocational training available to women at Hydebank Wood is very
restricted although what is offered is of a good quality. A wider range would provide
women with more opportunities for purposeful activity and would help them secure
employment on release. The Dochas Centre for instance provides a more extensive range
of training and education to women prisoners in Ireland, including hairdressing, industrial
cleaning and sewing. Although the prisoner population in the Dochas Centre is around
twice that of Hydebank Wood, it is still relatively small and serves as a useful comparator.
We were encouraged to hear that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is developing closer
links with the Dochas Centre and we hope that this will lead, among other things, to the
development of more women-focused vocational training at Hydebank Wood.
72. Prisoners in Northern Ireland deserve the best possible opportunities to rejoin
society on their release as self-sufficient members of the community, and preparation
for employment is a key aspect of that process. We recommend that the prison service
provides a wider range of vocational training, appropriate to the needs of women
prisoners.
73. Visiting for women at Hydebank Wood takes place in a visits room shared with the
male young offenders. Mrs Olwyn Lyner, Chief Executive of NIACRO, told us that this was
an unsatisfactory arrangement:
One of the issues which I think is distressing in relation to Hydebank Wood is the
women sharing the visits area with the young men. The interaction that the women,
whether they be 20 or 40, have with their children is quite different from that which
the young men have with very small children and for all of that to be happening in
the same place is difficult for the women.85
Her view is shared by the NIHRC, who have reported that:

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Ash House Hydebank Wood Prison 28-30 November 2004 pp37 – 38.

Ibid.

Q 413

Q 316

28
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Women were conscious of the presence of the young men from the Young
Offenders’ Centre. They sometimes felt vulnerable and self-conscious sitting in the
visits area, especially if their case had a high media profile. Mothers worried about
the impact on their children of visits in a room shared with a larger number of male
young offenders.86
We were able to see the visits room being used and we concur with these views.
74. The NIHRC also expressed concerns about the healthcare centre, which is shared by
women and male young offenders:
In terms of healthcare [the shared healthcare centre] had particularly severe
implications. We actually list the example of a self-harming suicidal woman in the
report. We use her case study. She was in the healthcare centre and because there was
a young boy in the healthcare centre who was risk assessed as a threat to women – he
had threatened female staff – it meant that neither he nor the self-harming woman
could be let out of their cells at the same time, so it meant extreme periods of lock-up
for both the young boy and the self-harming woman.87
The Bamford review of mental health recommended that health services should be gender
specific and recognise the specific needs of both male and female users. It stated that “it is
particularly important to be clear about the reasons to either separate or integrate male and
female service users. For example, much of the therapeutic work to address the effects of
sexual abuse and trauma may be better carried out in a single sex environment. In other
situations an integrated environment may facilitate work on social skills.” 88
75. Sharing of the Hydebank Wood estate has implications not only for the women, but
also for the male young offenders. Ms Anne Owers told us that she believed that the young
offenders at Hydebank Wood suffered because of the need to share facilities. She pointed
out that at Hydebank Wood, vocational work spaces were only available for 25% of the
young offenders, with 50% unemployed altogether, and said that it would be possible to
provide a much more focused environment for both groups if they had separate sites.89 In
the longer term, the growth of the young offender population may be such that Ash House
will again be required to accommodate the young men.
76. Whilst we accept that these important issues at Hydebank Wood are recognised by
the prison service, we believe that it is of paramount importance that urgent attention
be given to addressing the issues of the shared visits room, and, even more, the health
care centre by seeking to ensure that whenever possible they are not used at the same
time by women prisoners and male young offenders. We accept that prison staff have
made every effort to make the best of less than ideal accommodation, and have
responded well to specific difficulties. However, further investment in short term

The prison within. The imprisonment of women at Hydebank Wood 2004-06. Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission. July 2007. p65.

Q 480

The Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland), Forensic Services, October 2006
para 11.75.

Q 21

29
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

solutions is not an adequate response to a situation which cannot be allowed to
continue indefinitely.
77. When we visited Hydebank Wood, we were impressed by the desire and determination
of prison staff to respond positively to recommendations for change and to provide the
best possible regime for women within the restrictions of a shared physical environment.
We heard about the recent development and implementation of new policies for example
to tackle alcohol addiction, to manage the care of self-harming women and to improve
induction and first night arrangements for new inmates. We saw, and were impressed by
the refurbished accommodation in Ash House, including the long term special privilege
landing for women with enhanced prisoner status, the mother and baby facilities and the
newly built recreation area next to Ash House.
78. We commend the prison service, particularly the staff at Hydebank Wood, for their
efforts to provide a dignified, constructive and therapeutic regime for women prisoners
in the face of repeated criticisms. We conclude that these efforts can only have limited
results as long as the women continue to share a site with young offenders, although we
accept that the land owned by the prison service at Hydebank Wood site is large enough
for separate facilities to be provided there.
79. Baroness Corston in her review of women in the criminal justice system called for a
fundamental rethinking of provision for vulnerable women, and a re-design of women’s
custody. She recommended that there should be a distinct approach for women within the
criminal justice system; that treating men and women in the same way results in inequality
of outcome; and that there is a need to develop different services for men and women so
that women can be treated according to their different needs. Ms Anne Owers was of the
view that these recommendations could usefully inform the future development of
women’s prison facilities in Northern Ireland:
You could model something on what Jean Corston recommends, which is smaller
units, not with the level of security that you need for high security men’s prison, with
a lot more permeability between women and their families and also putting in place
the kind of mental health and vulnerability support that is needed for an awful lot of
the women that end up in prison. So you could see this as a really positive
opportunity to develop something that really was modelled around the needs of
women because prisons in all the jurisdictions in the UK were built largely around
the needs of men.90
Baroness Corston explained to us that:
I think that the essential message that I tried to convey is that prison is, if you like, a
male construct. … The people who generally have run our prison service have been
men, and the model of a prison is a male prison, where there is a propensity for
violence inside, a propensity for aggressive and violent behaviour, so therefore what
you need is a secure border, you need to search people repeatedly, and you have to
keep them locked up. … if you treat men and women the same the outcome is not

Q 19

30
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

equal. I give one example: if you look at most prisons the big challenge for prisons is
seen to be purposeful employment when they leave prison … For most women,
coming out of prison, the one thing they care about is somewhere to live with their
children, because only 5% of their children are looked after by their fathers.91
80. The prison service has accepted that a new purpose built female facility needs to be
built but has not given formal indication of when this might be achieved.92 The approach
since the move to Hydebank Wood has been to make whatever adjustments have been
possible within the restrictions of a shared site. In some cases, such as the refurbishment of
Ash House, this has involved significant financial investment. Whilst we support the
prison service’s efforts to improve the women’s regime, we share the concerns of Mr Kit
Chivers who told us that he was “slightly apprehensive to find that they (the prison service)
were planning to do more of a sticking plaster nature to improve facilities there (Hydebank
Wood) rather than facing up to the need for a hard decision in the long run”.93 The
Minister, Paul Goggins MP, confirmed to us that in his view “there does need to be
separate accommodation for women”.94 He told us that before making a decision with
regard to that facility, he considered it important to look at the wider issues of women in
the criminal justice system. This would help determine the appropriate size of the new
facility.95
81. We are convinced that there is a pressing need for a self contained women’s prison
facility in Northern Ireland. Some witnesses have suggested that it might be possible to
do this at or adjacent to the Hydebank Wood estate. We are disappointed that the
prison service did not include the women’s needs in its prison estate options appraisal
or appear to give serious consideration to this possibility. We regard this as a missed
opportunity. However we are encouraged by Mr Goggins’ statement that he has asked
for a women’s strategy and plans for a women’s facility to be developed during 2008.
We recommend that the Minister ensure that the development of plans and costings for
a discrete women’s facility, and a timetable for implementing the plans, are treated as a
high priority.

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

Q 540

Ev 130

Q 20

Q 694

Qq 694-697

31
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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 Mazelike 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

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

Ibid.

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

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

100 Ibid. Q 735.
101 Ibid. paragraphs 89-90.
102 Ibid. paragraphs 161-162.

32
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

103 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at
HMP Maghaberry, HC 302, paragraph 9.
104 Ibid. paragraph 9.
105 Ibid. paragraph 24.
106 The Steele Report, paragraph 47.
107 Q 104
108 Q 106
109 Qq 720-723
110 The full entry criteria, proposed during prison service’s review of the separated regime in 2006, are that the prisoner
wishes to be admitted to separated conditions; he is of male gender; he has attained the age of 18 years; he is a
member or supporter of a proscribed organisation connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; admitting him to
separated conditions would not be likely to prejudice his safety; admitting him to separated conditions would not
be likely to prejudice the safety of others; and admitting him to separated conditions would not be likely to
prejudice the maintenance of security or good order in prison.www.niprisonservice.gov.uk .
111 Q 716
112 Q 22

33
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

113 Q 101
114 Q 33
115 Q 25
116 This arrangement does not apply during recreation periods where larger groups may congregate together. Prison
officers escort prisoners to and from the recreation areas in small groups and do not remain in the recreation areas
with the prisoners; hence there are no safety issues for officers at these times (see Review of the Separated Regime,
para 3.6, January 2006, www.niprisonservice.gov.uk .
117 Q 220
118 Q 223
119 Q 220
120 Q 220
121 Q 222
122 Q 344
123 Q 353

34
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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

124 Q 353
125 Q 355
126 Qq 355, 356
127 Q 503
128 Q 503
129 Q 503
130 Q 504
131 Q 518
132 Q 512
133 Q 512
134 Q 513

35
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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.
135 Q 22
136 Ev 154
137 Ev 154

36
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

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.

138 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at
HMP Maghaberry, HC 302, HC 302
139 Q 717

37
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

5 Health
Transfer of responsibility for prison healthcare
104. When we began our inquiry, we were told that a decision had been made to transfer
responsibility for prison healthcare from the prison service to the Department for Health,
Social Services and Public Safety on 1 April 2007. We discovered on our visit to Northern
Ireland in April 2007 that although the main prison healthcare budget had been transferred
on 1 April, the transfer of lead responsibility had been postponed for six months. The
Northern Ireland Prison Service’s Annual Report 2006/07 confirmed these points and
explained that “there have been extensive discussions with DHSSPS and HPSS bodies
about the detail of the transfer and partnership working is being progressively introduced”.
105. In view of the planned transfer of responsibility, we held a joint meeting with the
Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to
discuss the transfer, the reasons for the delays and other issues affecting both the prison
service and the health service, including the provision of secure hospital accommodation in
Northern Ireland. We plan to meet again to follow up progress on these issues.
106. In October, we were told that some details of the transfer had still not been resolved
and that it had been further delayed. Mr Masefield told us that in his view the necessary
arrangements were in place to finalise the transfer by 1 October, but that it had been
delayed because the DHSSPS had requested an increased budget to effect the transfer.140
He suggested that this budget issue may have arisen because additional funding had been
provided to effect the equivalent transfer in England and Wales in 2001. However he
added that the annual prison healthcare budget for Northern Ireland was already
proportionately more than that for England and Wales, and was in his view adequate. The
Minister told us in his evidence of 21 November that the main obstacle to the completion
of the transfer was the budget.141 He explained that extra resources had been made
available for mental healthcare and said that in his view the proposed budget provided
sufficient resources. He added that he was hopeful that the transfer would be completed
“shortly”.142
107. The intention behind the transfer is to provide an equivalent level of health care in the
community and in prison. Witnesses welcomed the transfer and agreed that it was a
positive step which would bring benefits to prisoners. Ms Anne Owers told us that:
One wants to see a situation where there is equivalent care in prison and out of
prison, particularly given the fact that the morbidity in those in prison is likely to be
higher than the outside community both in terms of physical and mental illness, but
also in terms of the fact that most people are in prison for relatively short periods of

140 Qq 657, 658
141 Q 711
142 Qq 706-708

38
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

time and they are going to require care in the community once they are out, and we
want a situation where that is made as seamless as possible.143
Following a recent review of the care and support of prisoners in England and Wales with
mental health needs, Ms Anne Owers concluded that the transfer of prison healthcare
responsibility to the health service in England and Wales had been beneficial:
There can be no doubt that, over this period [the last five to ten years], the quality
and extent of treatment available to mentally ill prisoners has improved. The
presence of trained healthcare professionals, and the direct involvement of the
National Health Service, has had a direct effect on the care of patients, and an
indirect effect on the better understanding of mental illness among prison staff as a
whole.144
Although much does remain to be done, we did see the validity of this observation on our
visit to HMP Belmarsh.
108. Dr Philip McClements, the Northern Ireland Prison Service Associate Director for
Healthcare, said that a key benefit of the new arrangements would be a clear separation
between policy and performance management, commissioning and provision. He outlined
three main areas where he expected that prisoners would benefit from the transfer; mental
health treatment, drug and alcohol addiction care and GP services. He also felt that, despite
some initial reluctance, the POA now accepted that the transfer was necessary and that
there would be clear benefits for healthcare staff:
…there is a lot to be gained from the mutual exchange of experience and
understanding which would come about when the doors opened and the Health
Service came in. We certainly feel that our staff are isolated from the world of health
outside, so they become institutionalised working in this setting and would benefit
greatly from exposure to the newer and wider ideas which go in the Health Service.145
109. Another area where witnesses wished to see improvements made was with regard to
continuity of care between prison and the community. NIACRO told us that it was
concerned about delays in providing medication after individuals have arrived in prison:
A really important thing … is the length of time which somebody who comes in into
the process arrives into prison on day one and says, “I am on medication” has to wait
before that … is sorted and you are back on your hard drug or whatever, and that
seems inappropriate.146
The Chairmen of the Independent Monitoring Boards had concerns about the withdrawal
or drastic reduction of medication:

143 Q 43
144 HMIP The mental health of prisoners; A thematic review of the care and support of prisoners with mental health
needs October 2007 p5.
145 Q 587
146 Q 321

39
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

When inmates are transferred from Maghaberry to Magilligan their medication is
either reduced, withdrawn completely or changed, and we would have a number of
complaints about that. We have been discussing it with the governor and we have
been monitoring it. If you change, reduce or withdraw somebody’s medication and
they have been on it for a long period of time that can lead to major problems and I
think we might have seen the outcome of a number of those in the past year.147
The withdrawal or drastic reduction of medication we are finding a big problem with
women prisoners. Apparently, for the rate of prescribing, Northern Ireland is top of
the league. This was in the outside prison situation. When these ladies come into
prison their medication is either withdrawn or drastically reduced and these are
vulnerable people who are having the crutch of medication withdrawn and they are
finding it extremely difficult to get by.148
110. We note that there are areas of prison healthcare which require improvement. We
are concerned about the delays in effecting the transfer of responsibility for prison
healthcare to the health service. We believe this delay could create staffing difficulties
and confusion over lines of responsibility. We welcome the transfer and urge the
Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that it is completed in the
very near future.

Mental health services
111. One of the biggest challenges for prison healthcare is the prevalence of mental illnesses
and other psychiatric disorders among prisoners. This is not just an issue within prisons,
there is also a recognised need to improve mental health services in the Northern Ireland
community and a review, originally chaired by Professor David Bamford who died during
the course of the review, was set up in late 2002 to examine how services for people in
Northern Ireland with mental illness or learning disabilities could be improved. Paul
Goggins gave his initial response to the findings of the Bamford Review at a conference in
Belfast in October 2006 and acknowledged that mental health and learning disability
services in Northern Ireland needed major reform:
Health and social services for people with mental health problems or a learning
disability have not moved with the times. They are out-dated and do not meet
people's needs. We need to move away from an over reliance on hospital care to
more responsive care and treatment from GPs and community teams. We need to
promote effective counselling and personal support and reduce dependency on
medication. We need to put patients first.149
112. The Bamford Review consisted of a number of interlinked reviews, including one of
forensic services which commented on the extent of mental health problems among
prisoners. It noted that:

147 Q 449
148 Q 454
149 DHSSPS News release 31 October 2006.

40
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Mental health problems, and mental illness, are the most prominent single health
challenge in the prison environment. In a recent study by Blaauw 2004, an estimated
63% of prisoners had a psychiatric disorder, compared with 16% of the general
population. These disorders included affective disorders, anxiety, psychosis, alcohol
and substance misuse and personality disorder. Although no comprehensive similar
study has been carried out in Northern Ireland, the evidence suggests that if anything
the figure is even higher. There is an urgent requirement for detailed assessment of
mental health needs of prisoners in Northern Ireland.150
113. NIACRO told us that it welcomed the focus on the mental health needs of prisoners,
but questioned whether the health service would be able to address those needs, given the
lack of provision for the wider community:
So certainly we would welcome the health input and control of health-related
matters, and that includes … mainstream medical physical conditions as well as
psychiatric, but we would have serious concerns, particularly around the psychiatric
elements of that, because if they are of a fairly low standard already … what chance is
there of people who are in a contained situation accessing quality services?151
114. The incidence of suicides in Northern Ireland prisons was also the subject of an
independent review, which was commissioned in May 2004 following six non-natural
deaths in Northern Ireland prisons in the preceding 2 years. These prison deaths occurred
at a time when there were UK-wide concerns about an increase in self-harm and suicide in
prisons, and in Northern Ireland prisons there were increasing pressures due to
paramilitary separation issues. The review, chaired by Professor Roy McClelland, analysed
recent non-natural deaths, reviewed risk awareness and its management and analysed the
systems, procedures, conditions and culture within Northern Ireland’s three prison
establishments. It included observations and interviews with prisoners and staff. The
report, published in November 2005, listed 30 recommendations (the majority for the
prison service) relating to risk management, information sharing, prison health, raising
standards, training, health service responsibilities and implementing the
recommendations.
115. Ms Anne Owers noted in her recent report on the mental health of prisoners that:
…care and support for those with mental and emotional needs should not be seen as
the exclusive province of mental health professionals. It requires a holistic approach,
as developed by this Inspectorate in its model of a ‘healthy prison’ – one where
prisoners are safe, treated respectfully, able to engage in purposeful activity, and
prepared for resettlement. Notably it was activity and support from staff and other
prisoners that were the two things thought to be most helpful by prisoners with
mental health and emotional problems, and the absence of these crucial elements

150 The Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland) Forensic Services, October 2006,
para 6.14.
151 Q 322

41
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

was thought most likely to make things worse. In overcrowded, under-resourced
prisons, these essential elements of care are, however, at a premium.152
It is clear that, despite the planned transfer of healthcare responsibility to the health service,
the prison service will continue to have a key role to play in the care of prisoners with
mental health needs. This will require effective partnerships between health and prison
staff.
Prisoners with personality disorders
116. Dr Bownes, consultant forensic psychiatrist, estimated from his experience over the
past twenty years that around 65% of prisoners had mental health problems, but explained
that only around a quarter of these had significant mental illness as defined within the
terms of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.153 He told us that many
prisoners were “poorly personally resourced and personality disordered individuals”.154
117. The number of prisoners with personality disorders presents particular challenges for
the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The PGA told us that “the view of our Association
would be that … there are people who wind up in prison who probably should be in
hospital”.155 However, the Mental Health Order, does not allow for the detention and
treatment of individuals with personality disorders, and offenders with personality
disorders are therefore detained in prison rather than in a hospital. According to Fred
Browne, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist:
The Order does not recognise a separate category of psychopathic disorder and does
not allow for the detention and treatment of persons diagnosed with a psychopathic
disorder, regardless of whether they are considered amenable to treatment. People
may, of course, be detained and treated under the provisions of the Order when
personality disorder coexists with mental illness or severe mental impairment.156
118. The term ‘personality disorder’ tends to be used very broadly to cover a range of
different behaviours, but a common factor is that usually the disorders are considered as
less responsive to treatment. The challenge for the prison service is therefore to provide an
environment where such prisoners can be appropriately cared for, and their behaviour
properly managed so as to improve the prisoners’ potential and reduce their future risk of
re-offending, rather than a regime which would aim to ‘correct’ the personality disorder.
119. The Bamford review suggested that personality disorder is “the most controversial,
emotive and poorly understood issue at the interface between the criminal justice system
and the Health and Social Services” and that “the term is so broad and the different types of
personality disorder may have such different manifestations that the term ‘personality

152 HMIP The mental health of prisoners: A thematic review of the care and support of prisoners with mental health
needs, October 2007 p6.
153 Q 588
154 Ibid.
155 Q 120
156 Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2000) 6: 411-413.

42
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

disorder’ by itself conveys little meaning.” The report stated that there are no specific
forensic services in Northern Ireland for the assessment and treatment of personality
disorder, whereas in England “there has been substantial financial investment in forensic
services for people suffering from personality disorder.” It recommended that outpatient
and day patient services should be provided for prisoners suffering from personality
disorder and that a residential secure service should also be developed.
120. The Prisoner Ombudsman told us that he was particularly concerned about the “high
number” of prisoners with personality disorders, and suggested that the prison service
needed more help to be able to offer enhanced therapeutic facilities to these prisoners.157
He believed that prison staff needed to be specially trained to deal with personality
disorders and mental health needs and that the care of such prisoners required substantial
new investment. The Northern Ireland Prison Service this year opened a small therapeutic
facility, the Reach Unit, in HMP Maghaberry, providing a 24 bed unit for prisoners with
personality disorders. The Prisoner Ombudsman described the Reach Unit as “a major step
forward”, but pointed out that he understood that the prison service had encountered
difficulties in recruiting suitably experienced psychologist staff for the unit.158
121. The NIHRC agreed that better therapeutic facilities were required for prisoners with
personality disorders:
People with serious mental health problems should wherever possible be provided
with therapeutic alternatives to prison. This includes people diagnosed as
‘personality disordered’. A coherent and multi-agency strategy should be developed
to respond to the needs of offenders diagnosed as mentally ill and ‘behaviourally’ or
‘personality disordered’. There should be the development of community-based
therapeutic facilities offering age-appropriate and gender-specific programmes to
identify and meet needs.159
122. The Life Sentence Review Commissioners suggested that there needed to be more
input into the assessment and management of prisoners with a personality disorder in
order to reduce risk:
The Commissioners note that at present there is little if any input into the assessment
and management of prisoners with a personality disorder. This needs to be
addressed in terms of specific difficulties eg self-harm and impulsivity at an
individual level to reduce risk. As a first step the Commissioners commend the
recent opening of the Reach facility in Maghaberry Prison which is a 24 bed unit
located to house prisoners who have personality disorders and for which the staff
receive specialised training.160

157 Q 180
158 Q 180
159 Ev 175
160 Ev 169

43
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

123. PBNI told us that it was particularly concerned about prisoners who had not been
diagnosed as having a defined ‘treatable’ mental illness, but whose behaviour represented a
danger to themselves or to others.161
Members will be aware that the mental health legislation is different in Northern
Ireland and a personality disorder does not fall within the remit of mental disorder.
That poses particular problems for the PBNI … The issue has been that there is no
facility in Northern Ireland for the personality disordered dangerous offender … It is
a really big dilemma where you had the needs of the offender, who has got a
personality disorder, but you have also got the responsibility which the Probation
Board has in terms of public protection.162
The PBNI told us that it was jointly considering with the prison service the establishment
of a half way house to help with the process of resettling prisoners with personality
disorders who pose a significant but manageable risk to the community. The half way
house would provide a more open, but still secure environment, thereby offering more
public protection and more appropriate resettlement for these prisoners. Mr Masefield
explained that it might be possible to develop such a hostel using buildings owned by the
prison service in Crumlin Road, Belfast. We note that the CJI interim report on the
management of sex offenders identified one its two pressing concerns to be the “serious
pressure on the offender hostels, which are essential for management of the most
dangerous offenders”.163
124. Dr McClements told us that in his view, legislative changes permitting the detention
of people with severe personality disorders would be beneficial, but that this would have to
be supported by the provision of new health facilities:
A simple change in the legislation will not do very much overnight to change the
culture, to change the absence of a culture of treating people with personality
disorder within NHS hospitals. We would also require secure hospitals, we would
require a range of secure facilities and semi-secure facilities within the community so
that individuals who are treated under mental health legislation, when they are well
or relatively well they could step down into facilities in the community. It is not just a
simple matter of changing the legislation …164
Dr Bownes, forensic psychiatrist, described the opening of the Reach Unit at Maghaberry
as a good start and suggested that the experience gained there be used to inform the further
development of facilities for prisoners with personality disorders.165
125. Whilst we completely accept that the safety of the law abiding population must be
of paramount concern, we note that the large number of prisoners with personality
disorders in Northern Ireland prisons presents a challenge for the prison service, in
terms of developing a regime to manage their behaviour, providing appropriate care
161 Ev 190
162 Q 273
163 CJI The Management of Sex Offenders Interim Report December 2006 pvii.
164 Q 607
165 Q 618

44
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

and reducing the risks they pose before and after release. We recommend that the
Government give serious consideration to the arguments for amending the legislation
in order to consider whether the best interests of such individuals would be served by
bringing them within the scope of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
Whatever the legislation, there is a pressing need for more facilities to be provided for
the support of those with personality disorders. We commend the opening of the Reach
Unit in HMP Maghaberry as a good start, but recognise that this must now be further
developed. We support the proposal from the Probation Board and the Prison Service
to provide a hostel to aid the resettlement of prisoners with personality disorders.
Secure hospitals in Northern Ireland
126. The Bamford review identified a number of major gaps in high and medium secure
inpatient provision in Northern Ireland. It explained that there is no high security hospital
in Northern Ireland and that the State Hospital, Carstairs, Scotland had provided most of
the high security care and treatment for those adults from Northern Ireland with mental
illness or severe mental impairment who, because of their dangerous, violent or criminal
propensities, could not be cared for in any other setting. However, remand prisoners
cannot be sent to a hospital outside Northern Ireland, and Carstairs Hospital rarely admits
patients with a primary diagnosis of personality disorder. Prisoners falling into either of
these two categories remain the responsibility of the prison service. Dr Bownes told us that
in his view, this lack of provision was indefensible:
Over the years, every 12 to 18 months, we tend to have a very unfortunate situation
where we have someone who might have a five or ten year history of schizophrenia
and has killed a relative or killed someone close to them and they have to languish in
prison and are sub-optimally treated in a totally inappropriate setting. I think we are
probably the only country, certainly within Ireland and the UK and possibly within
Western Europe, that cannot transfer someone suffering from major mental illness
who has committed a serious offence and requires treatment in condition of higher
security. They cannot leave the jurisdiction and that is something which is
indefensible in this current situation.166
127. The Shannon Clinic, Belfast (Northern Ireland’s Regional Medium Secure Unit), was
opened in April 2005, but has limited facilities for women and no facilities for individuals
requiring longer stay (over 2 years) treatment.167 Dr Bownes told us that:
Traditionally … there has been some reluctance to take prisoners from the prison to
NHS settings; particularly there has been a worry about the expression of violence or
perhaps any active or passive affiliation which they may have had to paramilitary
organisations and what that might bring to the NHS hospital which would be
receiving them. Things have improved quite considerably. We do not have dedicated
beds within the psychiatric intensive care units or within the Shannon Clinic for

166 Q 589
167 The Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland) Forensic Services, October 2006
paras 8.32, 8.33.

45
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

immediate transfer of prisoners from the prisons, it is dependent on the clinical need
of other people outside the prison.168
Dr Bownes added that the possibility of commissioning a higher security level facility
within the Shannon Clinic was being considered, but that these discussions were at a very
early stage.169 Dr McClements suggested that to build a separate NHS high security facility
might not make sense on economic grounds, but that a suitable alternative might be for the
Prison Service and Health Service jointly to provide a six or eight bed high security unit,
possibly within HMP Maghaberry “for this difficult group of prisoners that we cannot cope
with”.170 Another option would be to develop an arrangement to share the secure hospital
facilities in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister told us that the DHSSPS would need to
take the lead on such an initiative, but that if it were to do so, he would be willing to discuss
such a development with them.171
128. We conclude that the lack of a high security hospital facility in Northern Ireland
places a strain on the prison service. The need for remand prisoners, including those
who are suffering from serious mental illness, to remain within Northern Ireland
means that the prison service has no option but to accommodate such prisoners even
though it is not equipped to provide appropriate care. We recommend that the prison
service and the health service jointly discuss with the Scottish Executive and the
government of the Republic of Ireland the possibilities of sharing secure hospital
facilities. Before coming to a conclusion, it should also consider the provision of a small
facility either at HMP Maghaberry or at Hydebank Wood, which is adjacent to the
Knockbracken Healthcare Park.

6 The prison regime
Education, training and employment
The role of education, training and employment in effective resettlement
129. One of the Prison Service’s strategic aims is “to assist family reintegration and help
reduce re-offending by providing prisoners with relevant skills, activities, services and
resettlement programmes”. The provision of education, training and employment fall
within the seven defined areas of work within the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement
Strategy, an initiative led jointly by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the
Northern Ireland Prison Service. The other six areas are: accommodation; mental and
physical health; drugs and alcohol; finance, benefits and debt; children and families of
offenders; and attitudes, thinking and behaviour. The Northern Ireland Prison Service’s

168 Q 590
169 Q 594
170 Q 594
171 Q 709

46
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Annual Report 2006-07 notes that “employment is one of the key factors in reducing the
risk of reconviction”.172
130. PBNI told us that it had “a very impressive record in terms of the management of
offenders in the community and the reduction of re-offending” and that “of three people
released, two of them will not re-offend within two years”.173 Paul Doran, Deputy Chief
Probation Officer explained the importance of providing education and training in
reducing levels of re-offending:
… prison should be seen as an opportunity for people who have maybe poor literacy
or poor employment records to address that. We know that the majority of prisoners
have literacy problems and it is a chance which should be taken. Also, the
opportunities to take up employment are the most important factor in the
prevention of further offending. Employment has been shown by research paper
after research paper to be the most effective method of preventing a person reoffending.174
131. The provision of sufficient purposeful activity for prisoners is also an important factor
in maintaining good mental health. Dr McClements, Associate Director for Healthcare,
told us that:
… meaningful activity in life is so essential. I would feel personally that if I was
confined to prison and did not have activities and was in my cell for long periods of
time, that in itself would be a trigger factor for mental illness or even more drastic
things to happen, for example intentional suicide.175
Level of provision
132. At each of the three prison establishments we saw a range of impressive education
facilities, workshops and classrooms for offender management classes. We heard that
many of the training courses were fully accredited with external bodies so that prisoners
were able to secure recognised qualifications to assist with their future search for
employment. We also heard about the range of employment opportunities available to
prisoners, both inside the prisons, and in the community. Working with prisoners to assist
them in their rehabilitation in these ways requires a high degree of dedication and
commitment. These qualities were clearly in evidence among both professional and
voluntary staff at all three establishments.
133. We visited Foyleview, a resettlement unit at HMP Magilligan. The role of the unit is to
aid the resettlement of prisoners, as they near the end of their sentence, by providing
support and opportunities for prisoners that promote self empowerment, family
relationships, employment, housing and citizenship. It was established in 1994 and has
formed strong links with the local community. The facilities include community

172 The Northern Ireland Prison Service, Annual Report and Accounts 2006-07, HC 863, p15
173 Q 254
174 Q 267
175 Q 614

47
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

workshops, community work placements in the voluntary and public sector and full time
employment with a range of approved employers. We were told during our visit in April,
that by that date, 1059 prisoners had entered Foyleview, of whom 783 had successfully
completed a resettlement programme and that only 32 of those entering the programme
had re-offended.
134. We also visited the Prisoner Assessment Unit (PAU) in Crumlin Road in April. Its
main task is to prepare life sentenced prisoners for their eventual release into the
community. When there is sufficient capacity, it also caters for long term and short
prisoners who meet the criteria, or who have passed through the Foyleview Unit at HMP
Magilligan. Prisoners in the PAU progress through three phases prior to their release on
licence. In the first phase, arrangements are made for job interviews and appropriate
employment secured; in the second the prisoner works outside the PAU, but returns each
weekday night; and in the third the prisoners live and work full-time in the community but
report to the PAU at least once a fortnight. Prisoners usually spend around a year in the
Unit.
135. We saw an interesting range of education facilities and workshops, and dedicated
teams of staff at all of Northern Ireland’s prison establishments. Our impression of the
Maghaberry Prisoner Assessment Unit was that it was working well, but that there was
insufficient capacity for all of the prisoners who might benefit from its facilities and
inadequate and outdated accommodation. We were impressed by the staff at Magilligan’s
Foyleview unit, and with its culture of encouraging the development of a work ethic and
creating a sense of ownership and pride amongst the prisoners.
136. However, the most recent inspection reports for all of the prison establishments have
concluded that the overall level of provision of education, work and time out of cell is
insufficient. The 2005 Maghaberry inspection report noted that “there were long waiting
lists for essential skills programmes and only limited literacy and numeracy support in
workshops”, “employment opportunities were limited, and many prisoners had no
purposeful activity” and “many prisoners were not allocated work or education, and the
regime was particularly impoverished for them; they could spend up to 22 hours in their
cells each day”.176 The 2006 assessment for Magilligan was that “Activities for prisoners
were too limited, particularly for a training prison. Eighty prisoners had no activity and the
high number of cleaners and domestic orderlies suggested that further unemployment was
being masked”.177 For Hydebank Wood women’s prison in 2004, it was noted that “the
education curriculum was limited and there were waiting lists for classes”, “The majority of
prisoners were employed in domestic tasks and there were waiting lists for work. No
accredited employment or training was taking place”, and “Time out of cell was reasonable
but there was insufficient purposeful activity”.178 The 2005 report of Hydebank Wood
YOC concluded that “There was generally insufficient purposeful activity to meet the

176 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Maghaberry Prison 14-15 October 2005, p49, p51, p55
177 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Magilligan Prison 10-19 May 2006, p47
178 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Ash House Hydebank Wood Prison 28-30 November 2004, p37, p38, p41

48
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

needs of the population and too little emphasis on developing a learning culture, with too
few young men involved in education”.179
137. Mr James McAllister (Chairman, Maghaberry IMB) agreed that there was inadequate
provision at Maghaberry:
… when I go to the workshops in Maghaberry there is not a great deal happening. If
I go over lunch there is nothing happening. There are moves to reflect a better
working day, but I also feel that prisoners in Maghaberry have become lazy because
of the lack of activity there.180
We accept that Maghaberry is a complex prison. However, providing the range of adequate
education and training facilities that is commonly accepted as being necessary means that
there has to be an acceptance that adequate resources for them are made available from the
prison budget.
Strategic approach and evaluation
138. We saw on our visits to Northern Ireland prisons, and heard from witnesses about
some excellent education, work and training programmes and the dedicated staff who
deliver these programmes. However, it is clear from the evidence we heard that there are
large numbers of prisoners who do not get the opportunity to participate. We believe that it
is a false economy to make inadequate provision for education and training, given the key
rehabilitative function of prisons. The Criminal Justice Inspection review of the Northern
Ireland Resettlement Strategy found that the concept of resettlement had become wellestablished since the introduction of the programme in 2003, and that there was a positive
commitment at strategic levels within the prison service and PBNI, but that there was a
need for a more consistent and comprehensive implementation of the strategy throughout
the prison service:
The resettlement culture within prisons is innovative, and there is a refreshing
willingness to experiment. The downside of this approach is a sometimes ad hoc and
localised development of resettlement. While many of the initiatives are good things
in themselves, piecemeal activity can mean that learning is not shared nor practice
consolidated, and progress is vulnerable to being overtaken by the next good idea.181
139. Criminal Justice Inspection noted that “the aspiration of prison working life reflecting
the working day outside is a long way from reality” and that “while 95% of Magilligan’s
prisoners are notionally allocated work, much of this is neither fulltime nor meaningful”.182
One of its comments was that the Prison Service’s Key Performance Targets focused on
volume rather than impact on prisoners, which meant that “some prisoners end up in
activities that are inappropriate to their needs while staff become frustrated by inconsistent

179 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Hydebank Wood Prison and Young Offender Centre, p13
180 Q 423
181 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, pviii
182 Ibid, p23.

49
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

attendance patterns”.183 The Life Sentence Review Commissioners commented on the
sometimes poor match of prisoners to appropriate programmes:
The difficulty is that prisoners need tailored programmes. This is anecdotal, this is a
situation I came across: a prisoner in his last three years had not improved his
literacy sufficiently to be able to undertake a sex offenders’ treatment programme.
That is not acceptable. The literacy should have been addressed as part of an
education plan right at the start of his sentence and he should not have been coming
through his sentence at the three year pre-tariff stage not able to participate in a sex
offenders’ treatment programme because he was illiterate.184
The Life Sentence Review Commissioners also mentioned the lack of assessment or
evaluation of the effectiveness of those programmes:
Only recently there has been some research done which indicates that some courses
are not terribly successful in rehabilitating prisoners and creating a lower risk, and
other courses seem to be quite good. So I think it is essential that the Prison Service
should continue to look critically at the courses they provide to see which ones are
going to do good and which ones are not.185
140. Other witnesses also commented on the need to focus efforts on the types of
programmes which would help prisoners secure employment on release, and in particular,
programmes which prisoners themselves could see would bring them benefits and so be
more motivated to engage with. For example, NIACRO told us that:
There is a big focus in the Prison Service on literacy and numeracy, and so I can
accept that because the evidence is very strong that people are lacking in it, but it is
easier to motivate people towards skills which will take them to employment. They
are not bought on the notion that literacy and numeracy will necessarily take them
there. They want the fork lift truck driving and they want the card to go onto the
building sites, and it is in that area that we need to work with people’s motivation,
because unless you have got somebody who is motivated it is very difficult to get
them to engage.186
We note with approval the variety of facilities available at the Dochas Centre and at
Wheatfield prison in the Republic of Ireland and to a slightly lesser extent at HMP
Belmarsh. We would welcome the Northern Ireland Prison Service developing stronger
links with their colleagues in the rest of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland.
141. Ms Anne Owers agreed that whilst the provision of basic literacy and numeracy
education was essential, more focus was also needed on equipping prisoners with skills that
would enable them to secure future employment:

183 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, p24
184 Q 365
185 Q 381
186 Q 309

50
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

… it is also partly simply about redirecting resources into workshops that can
provided both literacy and numeracy and skills that really will get people jobs outside
the prison and pushing the resources into those kinds of activities.187
142. CJI has pointed out that the Prison Service itself has concluded that there was no
coordinated strategy of prisoners’ activities, that large numbers of prisoners ended up in
activities that were inappropriate to their needs and that non-developmental activity (such
as orderly duties) often took priority over developmental activity (work, programmes and
education).188
143. One of the recommendations arising from the CJI inspection of the resettlement
strategy was that the prison service should recommit to establishing a personal officer
scheme or its equivalent for all prisoners, within a meaningful timescale.189 The prison
service for England and Wales describes the role of the personal officer as follows:
A personal officer is a prisoner's first port of call if they have questions, complaints or
need advice. They also play an important part in making and changing their sentence
plan, to help them make the best use of their time in prison and prepare them for a
law-abiding life on release.190
144. One of the key roles of personal officers in Northern Ireland would be to manage
individual prisoners’ resettlement plans so as to help ensure that prisoners have access to
appropriate activities and are encouraged to remain committed to their resettlement plans.
We note with concern that in contrast with the rest of the UK where it is now routine to
have personal officers, there are none in place in Northern Ireland. Their absence is one of
the most dramatic illustrations of the different culture there. Inspectors were told that the
prison service had “too many staff in the wrong places” (ie fulfilling security duties) and
that this had impeded attempts to introduce a personal officer scheme throughout the
prison estate since 2000.191 They were also told that a personal officer scheme was
unworkable for the Northern Ireland Prison Service and that instead, the prison service is
proposing to introduce a case management system to coordinate resettlement activities
(although this might not be fully introduced for several years).192
145. We commend the examples of good resettlement practice we saw in all of the
prison establishments we visited. We conclude that what is needed now is a more
strategic approach towards matching education, work and training provision with
prisoners’ needs, more focus on providing skills which will enable prisoners to secure
employment and a programme of evaluation to assess which programmes are most
effective. We support the Chief Inspector’s recommendation that a personal officer

187 Q 54
188 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, p25
189 Ibid.
190 www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk
191 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, paragraph 6.6
192 Ibid. paragraph 6.7

51
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

scheme, or its equivalent, is introduced as a matter of priority, so as to ensure a better
strategic match between resettlement activities and each prisoner’s needs, and to
encourage prisoners to remain committed to their individual resettlement plan.
Security led culture
146. Witnesses suggested that a major barrier to effective resettlement was the focus on
security at the expense of resettlement. CJI concluded in its resettlement inspection report
that:
Of all the challenges that resettlement faces, it is the predominant security culture
that most impedes much of the progress to which NIPS aspires. High levels of
searching and shutdowns, combined with the fact that most prisoners have to be
escorted everywhere within the prisons, have a negative impact on culture and
relationships.193
Mr Kit Chivers told us that:
…it all comes down to changing the culture of the prisons. The prisons still have this
culture of being basically obsessed with security, being instruments of security of the
State and not focusing on resettlement and reducing convictions as their first
objective. … the problem is actually changing the operation of the prison officers on
the ground and getting them to change their mindset from being basically turnkeys
to being professionals who are interacting with the prisoners…194
147. In Chapter 2, we referred to the delay in implementing the new security classification
model, which suggested that 50% of Northern Ireland’s prisoners could have their security
classification downgraded. CJI noted that this delay had significant consequences for
resettlement work, because it perpetuated the need for most prisoners to be escorted
everywhere within prisons and the negative impact on culture and relationships. CJI
recommended that:
Of all the reviews recently undertaken by NIPS, this is probably the most important
for resettlement purposes, and we recommend that the Security Classification
Review’s recommendations be implemented with a degree of urgency.195
148. NIACRO told us that it believed that only around 10% of resources were spent on
resettlement as opposed to detection and prosecution and that “this is a key issue for the
Prison Service, that it actually manages to focus its resources away from security, the
requirement of the last 30 years and much more towards resettlement”.196
149. We strongly recommend that the Northern Ireland Prison Service continues with
its drive to introduce a culture which encourages prison officers to engage with
193 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, p24
194 Q 53
195 Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, An Inspection of the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy,
June 2007, p25
196 Q 292

52
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

prisoners to a greater extent and to view their role as one of facilitating resettlement,
rather than solely enforcing security.

Vulnerable prisoners
150. The prison systems of both England and Wales and the Republic of Ireland have a
significant number of vulnerable prisoner units (VPUs) or protection units. These
normally house sex offenders, prisoners who are ex-police officers, prisoners with debt
problems and those seeking protection from criminal gangs. The Northern Ireland Prison
Service has no official VPUs. Mr McAleer, Chairman of the PGA said that “it has always
been the policy of the Northern Ireland Prison Service not to segregate, which is sort of
different from over here, where sex offenders were segregated; it was always our policy to
integrate them into the system”.197 However, he also suggested that this policy was
sometimes varied if necessary, saying that “the governor is in command of the prison and
the governor of any prison can have any regime he likes, so he could take decisions on the
day to integrate or segregate, depending on some operational issue; but the overall policy
within the Northern Ireland group, unlike over here (England), was not to segregate
them.”198
151. When we visited Magilligan, we were told that the policy was to integrate sex
offenders fully with other prisoners. However, some prisoners told us that they felt that sex
offenders were given preferential access to the woodwork workshop, and at the time of our
visit many of those in the workshop told us that they were sex offenders. The 2006
inspection report for Magilligan noted that there was a degree of separation for
accommodation and visits:
Eighty-three (21%) of prisoners were identified as vulnerable, mainly because of the
nature of their offence. Although largely accommodated separately, they were
partially integrated and completed induction with other committals. In our survey,
perceptions of safety were worse among vulnerable prisoners, with 69% of those on
H2 C and D and Sperrin saying they had felt unsafe at some time…. Separate tables
were used for vulnerable prisoners in visits, and the furniture workshop provided
work mainly for vulnerable prisoners.199
152. The 2005 Maghaberry inspection report noted that:
In our survey, 62% of prisoners said they had felt unsafe in the prison. This
compared to a 38% benchmark for local prisons. More than the benchmark also said
they had been victimised by other prisoners, and the survey indicated this had
increased by 11% since our survey from 2002.200
The report also noted that:

197 Q 130
198 Q 135
199 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Magilligan Prison 10-19 May 2006 p32
200 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Maghaberry Prison 14-15 October 2005, p29

53
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

There was a small vulnerable prisoner unit (VPU) located on Lagan landing 5. The
unit had 24 spaces and 16 were occupied. The regime was landing-based, and
included some education provision and gym. We found no evidence that vulnerable
prisoners here felt particularly unsafe.201
153. We do not believe that the Northern Ireland Prison Service has a sufficiently clear
strategy on the integration of vulnerable prisoners. There is no clear statement as to
what the policy is on integration of vulnerable prisoners and we recommend that one is
made by the prison service. We conclude that there is a marked difference between the
Northern Ireland Prison Service approach and those of the prison services in the
Republic of Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. We recommend that the
Northern Ireland Prison Service reviews its policy and practices relating to vulnerable
prisoners in order to ensure that they provide effective protection from bullying and
victimisation.

7 Accountability
Prison inspections
154. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) is an independent statutory
inspectorate, established under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, constituted as a
non-departmental public body in the person of the Chief Inspector. It is funded by and
reports to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has powers to direct the Chief
Inspector to undertake specific pieces of work. Normally, however, the Chief Inspector
proposes a programme of work, which is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
CJINI has a duty under the 2002 Act to inspect the Northern Ireland Prison Service and
has the power to delegate that responsibility to HM Inspector of Prisons (HMIP). Mr Kit
Chivers, Chief Inspector CJINI, told us that in most cases he preferred to work in
partnership with other inspectorates, and that in the case of prison inspections HMIP
usually provided the lead inspector who would form a team with members from both
CJINI and HMIP.202 The members of the team shared their findings and published the
reports jointly. Starting with the inspection of HMP Magilligan in September 2004,
inspections of Northern Ireland Prison Servicec establishments have been led by HMIP
with the participation of inspectors from CJINI, and the resulting reports have been jointly
signed by both Chief Inspectors.203 The programme of inspections has been similar to that
for prisons in England in Wales, comprising a mix of scheduled and unannounced
inspections with each prison having at least one full inspection and one follow-up
inspection every five years.
155. The inspection reports that have been issued to date under those arrangements are
HMP Magilligan (March 2005 and December 2006), Hydebank Wood – Women Prisoners

201 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland, Report of an
unannounced inspection of Maghaberry Prison 14-15 October 2005 p30
202 Q 1
203 Ev 165

54
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

(May 2005), Hydebank Wood YOC (October 2005) and HMP Maghaberry (May 2006).
The inspections have been based on a methodology similar to that used for prisons in
England and Wales, but the remit of CJINI is wider than that of HMIP (for example CJINI
has a broader interest in the management of the Prison Service and the pay, conditions and
training of its staff) so it is not always possible to make direct comparisons between the two
prison services. CJINI also monitors how the Prison Service relates to other parts of
Northern Ireland’s criminal justice system and has covered aspects of the Prison Service’s
work in its broader reports on the Management of Sex Offenders (March 2005 and
December 2006), Target Setting and Performance Management (January 2006) and the
Northern Ireland Resettlement Strategy (June 2007).
156. The inspection of secure psychiatric accommodation is the responsibility of the health
board and does not fall within the remit of CJINI/HMIP.
157. Other, non-criminal justice inspectorates have a role in the work that takes place in
prisons. CJINI has negotiated joint working arrangements with these inspectorates in order
to minimise the inspection burden on the Northern Ireland Prison Service and so that the
inspection report provides a comprehensive review of the operation of the whole prison.
CJINI has worked jointly with the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI), and is planning a
similar relationship with the Northern Ireland Education and Training Inspectorate now
that it has taken on ALI’s inspection functions. HMIP and CJINI are developing a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Regulation and Quality Improvement
Authority, which inspects health and social services in Northern Ireland, so that HMIP will
continue to inspect the delivery of healthcare in prisons, while the Regulation and Quality
Improvement Agency inspects commissioning.204
158. Ms Anne Owers, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, told us that she believed the existing
inspection arrangements to be satisfactory and that she did not believe that the Northern
Ireland Prison Service was ‘over-inspected’:
I truly do not think that (over inspection) needs to be a concern. I cannot speak for
the NIHRC because that is something that is specific to Northern Ireland, it is new
and obviously (CJINI) will be working out what the relationship is with that. But the
whole reason that we do inspections jointly with the education inspectorate and the
healthcare inspector … is so that prisons do not get three or four separate people
turning up on three or four separate occasions … we and (CJINI) together organise
the programme for inspection and bring in these other organisations to provide their
specialist assistance. … So we can do two things. First of all we can reduce the burden
on the prison and prison service and secondly an inspection can provide a holistic
picture of the whole establishment205
159. In Northern Ireland, aspects of the prison regime have also been subject to scrutiny
from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) The NIHRC is a
statutory body created by the Northern Ireland Act 1998, with a range of duties relating to
human rights issues. It is able to conduct investigations, and has the power to assist
204 Ev 166
205 Q 50

55
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

individuals when they are bringing court proceedings, to intervene in proceedings and to
bring court proceedings itself. The NIHRC has conducted valuable research into women’s
imprisonment and into children in custody, and regularly submits responses to prison
service consultations on draft policies.206
160. We conclude that the inspection arrangements of Northern Ireland prisons are
operating satisfactorily and are pleased to note that Criminal Justice Inspection
Northern Ireland has established effective working relationships with the Northern
Ireland Prison Service and with other inspection agencies.

Prisoner complaints
The Prisoner Ombudsman
161. In February 2005, the then Secretary of State, Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP, appointed Mr
Brian Coulter as the first Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. His remit is to
investigate complaints by prisoners who have failed to obtain satisfaction from the
Northern Ireland Prison Service complaints system. If the Ombudsman upholds the
complaint, he will make recommendations to the Prison Service. The Ombudsman told us
that he also (at the request of the Minister) conducts investigations into deaths of prisoners
in prison custody, monitors the use of force at the disposal of the prison service and
conducts thematic reviews (normally at the instigation of the Director of the Northern
Ireland Prison Service).207 The Ombudsman is independent of the Prison Service and
reports to the Secretary of State. Mr Coulter suggested to us that his role should be placed
on a statutory footing in order to secure the independent powers of his Office.208 He
pointed out that the management of complaints is described in the Review of the Criminal
Justice System in Northern Ireland 2000 as an essential part of effective accountability
mechanisms. Mr Coulter told us that:
One important issue in relation to statutory footing is that I should be accountable to
Parliament for my aspect of prison service oversight and eventually, with devolution,
to the Northern Ireland Assembly. This above all would underscore the
independence of my Office. I am told that the failure to deliver proper statutory
footing for my Office in accordance with the wishes of the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland and the Prisons Minister is due to lack of resources with particular
regard to non availability of persons with legislative drafting skills. I hold the view
that the Northern Ireland Office has a duty to provide for the development of my
office and that the prevailing situation reflects an unacceptable policy vacuum.209
162. Mr Coulter also said that he believed it would be logical to include the Probation
Service within his remit (as is the case for his equivalent in England and Wales).210 The

206 Ev 173
207 Q 140
208 Ev 181
209 Ev 181
210 Qq 153, 178

56
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

PBNI, subject to the resolution of some specific issues, was supportive of the Prisoner
Ombudsman dealing with complaints against probation officers. Mr McCaughey, Chief
Probation Officer, informed us that the PBNI had proposed a pilot whereby the
Ombudsman would begin to deal with complaints for a year or so, with the PBNI paying
the costs for that period.211 The Minister told us that he had decided not to extend the
Ombudsman’s role to include probation, but that the Ombudsman had agreed to deal with
complaints from prisoners about the probation service on a voluntary trial basis.
163. Mr Coulter informed us that he believed he should retain responsibility for
investigating complaints about healthcare after the transfer of responsibility for healthcare
provision had moved from the prison service to the DHSSPS.212 Oversight of clinical
governance was also raised as a matter of concern by the IMBs:
There is a number of issues which concern us (about the transfer of responsibility for
health to the DHSSPS). First of all clinical governance. What is going to happen, and
if the prisoners have complaints regarding health who will they go to? … That is still
being discussed.213
Dr Philip McClements told us that his view was that:
If you are asking me for a personal view of how that will all shake out, my firm belief
is that if the transfer takes place, then the health-related issues in prisons must be
investigated by the Health Service Ombudsman and not the Prisoner Ombudsman
but, likewise, the prison components of complaints would still rest with Mr Coulter.
The difficulty is in looking at deaths in custody where you always have both areas,
there are always health issues and prison discipline and it is how you properly take
advice on both those sides of that particular equation.214
164. We are pleased to note that the Prisoner Ombudsman’s Office has become well
established in Northern Ireland and that it has developed good working relationships
with the prison service and with each prison establishment. We believe that, at a
suitable opportunity, the role of the Office should be placed on a statutory footing. We
are glad that arrangements are now underway to do so via amendments to the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Bill. We support the proposal from PBNI that there should be
a pilot period of a year or so during which the Ombudsman deals with probation
complaints, and recommend that this pilot should lead to the development of longer
term arrangements for handling of probation complaints. We call on the Northern
Ireland Prison Service and DHSSPS to ensure that future arrangements for handling
prisoner complaints about healthcare are carefully defined and clearly communicated
to prisoners.

211 Q 289
212 Qq 153, 178
213 Q 449
214 Q 587

57
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Independent monitoring boards
165. An independent monitoring board (IMB) is appointed for each prison in Northern
Ireland by the Secretary of State under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. The IMBs
deal with a variety of issues relating to the treatment, healthcare and welfare of prisoners,
and they consider requests and complaints made by prisoners. In order to fulfil their role,
each member of a Board has the right of access to all parts of the prison and to each
prisoner at any time. The IMBs have an oversight of prison staffing and administrative
issues only in so far as these impact on the welfare of prisoners. IMB representatives are
present as observers of all major incidents. Mr McAllister (IMB Chairman, HMP
Maghaberry) told us that the Prison Service took the role of the IMBs seriously, and that
there were good communications between the IMBs and different parts of the Prison
Service.215
166. The IMB 2005/06 reports note that the IMB secretarial function was transferred from
the prison service to the Prisoner Ombudsman’s Office and that the IMBs started to work
alongside the Ombudsman in dealing with prisoners’ complaints during that period. Mr
McAllister explained that there was no statutory or formal relationship setting out the
structure or framework for a relationship between the IMBs and the Prisoner
Ombudsman, but that the two offices shared much in common in terms of prisoners’
rights and in their roles in responding to prisoners’ complaints. He explained that work
was in progress to set up a protocol on working arrangements between both parties.216
However, Mr McAllister also explained that since the IMBs secretariat had moved from the
Prison Service to the Prisoner Ombudsman’s Office (to underline the IMBs’ independence
from the Prison Service), difficulties had arisen in relation to service provision and the
independence of the IMBs from the Ombudsman:
There is a perception among prisoners and prison staff alike that the IMB is a branch
of the Ombudsman’s office. Although there are some similarities in the work of both
offices and there is a necessity to work together in areas of mutual concern, it is
crucial to the IMBs that we are not only independent but that we are seem to be
independent.217
167. The Committee on Administration of Justice (CAJ)218 suggested that since the IMBs
were a relatively new institution, it might be useful if Criminal Justice Inspection were to
undertake in due course a thematic inspection of the operation of the IMBs to see how well
they were working.219
168. We commend the work of the Independent Monitoring Boards and acknowledge
gratefully the contribution made by those who offer their time on a voluntary basis. We
support the IMBs’ request to promote their role and underline their independence

215 Q 386
216 Q 386
217 Q 386
218 CAJ is an independent non-governmental organisation affiliated to the International Federation of Human Rights.
219 Ev 162

58
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

from the Prisoner Ombudsman’s Office. We recommend that the development of a
protocol on working arrangements between the two bodies is treated as a priority.

8 Efficiency
169. The Northern Ireland Prison Service is very expensive to run when compared to the
England and Wales and Scottish Prison Services by the measure of cost per prisoner place
(CPPP). The actual cost per prisoner place in Northern Ireland for 2006-07 was £90,298,
substantially above the interim target of £85,250.220 The average annual cost per prisoner
place in Scotland in 2006-07 was £30,989.221 Directly comparable figures for England and
Wales are no longer published, but, for example in 2006-07, the cost per prisoner place for
a male category C prison was £22,027. The Northern Ireland Office and HM Treasury have
prioritised the reduction of cost per prisoner place in Northern Ireland. The Northern
Ireland Office’s PSA Target 4 seeks to reduce the cost per prisoner place in Northern
Ireland to £82,500 by 2007-08. The prison service met the interim targets for reducing cost
per prisoner place in 2003-04, 2004-05222 and 2005-06; in 2005-06, cost per prisoner place
was £85,900 against an interim target of £86,900.223
170. The Northern Ireland Office has informed the Committee that in 2006-07 the prison
service:
came in within its allocated budget; the higher CPPP was due solely to the decision to
defer the building of accommodation, which had been anticipated in the 2004
Spending Review when the targets were set. The target for 2007-08 is £82,500 and
steps are being taken to achieve this target, including the implementation of a pay
and efficiency package in April 2007.224
We are concerned that the Northern Ireland figures include the costs of running the
separated regime, despite the recommendation of our predecessor Committee that the
costs of running the separated regime should be kept separate.225 We believe that this
distorts the overall measurement of cost per prisoner place for the Northern Ireland Prison
Service.
171. Some of the additional costs of running the Northern Ireland Prison Service are a
legacy of the Troubles, when a security premium was added to the pay of prison officers.
The large reduction in the number of prison officer posts after the closure of HMP Maze in
2000 led to a fall in recruitment, with the result that the Service has a higher proportion of
220 Northern Ireland Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 2006-07, Session 2006-07, HC863, Performance
against key targets.
221 Scottish Prison Service Annual Report 2006-07.
222 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of 2005-06, The Work of the Committee in 2005, HC 928,
Appendix 1.
223 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of 2006-07, The Work of the Committee in 2006, HC 294,
Appendix 2.
224 Winter Supplementary Estimate 2007: Written Memorandum by the NIO to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
225 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at
HMP Maghaberry, HC 302, HC 302, paragraph 90.

59
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

staff at the top of their pay grade than would be the case in most prison services. It must
also be borne in mind that the high number of fine defaulters and prisoners remanded in
custody also has a large impact on prison costs.
172. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has implemented a three year pay and efficiency
package comprising a 2% increase in basic pay each year for the three years of the package
2007-10; a 1.5% increase in pay each year conditional on the achievement of efficiencies;
10% efficiencies in the deployment of prison officer grades; new shift systems and
deployment practices; and the introduction of new staff grades.226 The package promises to
maintain or enhance existing regimes and develop the role of prison officers on the basis of
“prisoner engagement and the Respect agenda”.227 The main efficiency saving is to be
achieved through the 10% reduction in prison officer grade posts (known as main grade
officers (MGOs)), equivalent to a reduction of 150 staff. The change in shift patterns has
led to many staff accustomed to working a four day week (with longer shifts), working shift
patterns of a nine day fortnight.
173. Representatives of the Prison Governors’ Association complained that prison
governors were constantly being compared in cost per prisoner place terms with prisons in
England and Wales, and that the Northern Ireland Prison Service could never compete
with the economies of scale that applied to the England and Wales estate.228 NIACRO
agreed that comparing cost per prisoner place in Northern Ireland with the figure for
England and Wales was not comparing like with like, as the same arrangements for use of
third party providers did not apply in each service and the England and Wales service had
not faced the transitional costs that the Northern Ireland Prison Service had faced in
moving the service away from the direction that had been necessary during the years of the
Troubles.229
174. A new grade of staff, Officer Support Grade (OSG) is being introduced to undertake
work which could require contact with prisoners but which does not require the staff to
engage fully with prisoners and does not need the full range of skills of a prison officer.230
OSG staff will be introduced to replace natural wastage of MGOs. The prison service also
employs Night Custody Officers (NCOs) to undertake night duty work.
175. The Prisoner Escorting and Court Custody Service was established in February 2007;
around 100 staff were transferred from a private sector firm to the prison service to work as
Prisoner Custody Officers (PCOs), working with prison officers in undertaking duties in
the courts and in inter-prison transfers.231 Sixty-six further PCOs are being recruited
enabling MGOs to be redeployed. The prison service expects this programme to deliver
significant financial savings.

226 Ev 143
227 Ibid.
228 Q 93
229 Q 294
230 Ibid.
231 Northern Ireland Prison Service, Annual Report and Accounts for 2006-07, HC 863, Chapter 1.

60
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

176. The Northern Ireland Prison Service no longer recruits at MGO level but anticipates
that staff recruited at OSG, NCO or PCO level will move up, in time, into MGO ranks. The
introduction of these three auxiliary grades is expected to release experienced, more highly
graded, MGO prison officers to work directly with prisoners including “delivering
rehabilitation and resettlement programmes” and encouraging prisoners to engage in
programmes to reduce offending behaviour.232 The introduction of the auxiliary grades will
also deliver efficiency savings in a 10% reduction in more highly graded MGO posts.
177. Mr Kit Chivers, Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland,
stated that only about 10% of prison service staff were from the nationalist community.233
This community imbalance will not change unless staff who are both recruited into the
auxiliary grades and then progress to main grade officer are more representative of both
communities. Ms Anne Owers proposed that “as part of the normalisation process”, the
prison service should reflect the population of Northern Ireland and the population of its
prisons.234
178. Mr Chivers told us that, in terms of achieving efficiency savings, the strategy of
recruiting staff at auxiliary grades, rather than at prison officer level, was sound. Auxiliary
staff could take on a wide range of duties, while prison officers would work primarily in
interaction with prisoners and in “developmental work”.235 He suggested that the
employment of auxiliary grades together with a rising prison population would have the
effect of reducing the cost per prisoner place.236
179. Although many prison officers were equipped with the skills to deliver the
resettlement and rehabilitation programmes, “a significant cultural and attitudinal change”
was required to move away from the previous “security dominated” approach.237 Mr Kit
Chivers spoke of the need for prison officers “to change their mindset from being basically
turnkeys to being professionals who are interacting with the prisoners”.238 The Prison
Officers Association acknowledged the bunker mentality that affected many prison
officers, arguing that this was a legacy of the threats to prison officers from paramilitaries,
both inside and outside prison, during the Troubles.239 The ever present concern of prison
officers being suborned necessitates clear guidance and ground rules which can militate
against interaction between prison officers and prisoners in the separated wings. The
difficulty is that this is not the appropriate response within the mainstream prison system,
and the prison service has to deal with both situations.
180. In addition to the physical threats to security from paramilitaries, prison officers who
had served in the Maze prison remembered the development of an environment in which
232 Ev 144
233 Q 36
234 Q 42
235 Q 38
236 Q 52
237 Ev 144
238 Q 53
239 Q 195

61
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

prison management effectively lost control over areas of the prison accommodating
paramilitaries. It was difficult to convince prison officers that the threat to them and their
families was lifted,240 particularly in the context of continuing operations by dissident
republican groups.241
181. The Northern Ireland Prison Service acknowledges that the “culture of the
organisation is grounded in the approach necessary to deal with terrorist prisoners. For
many years the focus was on security and the need to maintain a distance from prisoners to
avoid dangers such as the potential for conditioning.[…] The time is now right to embark
on a cultural change across the service”.242
182. The Prison Governors’ Association reported that sick levels had risen from around 5%
in each prison to 9% at HMP Maghaberry, 4% at HMP Magilligan and 9% at HMP and
YOC Hydebank Wood since the implementation of the new shift patterns.243 The Prison
Officers Association complained that morale was very low as a result of the introduction of
the new shift patterns, although it did suggest that its introduction had been better handled
at HMP Magilligan.244
183. Parts of the Northern Ireland Prison Service routinely require higher ratios of staff to
prisoners than the England and Wales Prison Service; this is particularly evident within the
separated wings at Maghaberry. The Prison Governors’ Association told us the staffing
levels at Hydebank Wood in fact compared favourably with many Young Offenders
Institutions in England and Wales.245 It also argued that the staffing ratios at HMP
Maghaberry, which was run as a high security prison even though it contained many low
security prisoners, compared well with those at several category A prisons in England and
Wales.246 The cost per prisoner place in the Northern Ireland Prison Service would be
lower if prisoners were accommodated in prisons that were suitable for their security
categorisation.
184. Economies of scale can lead to cost reductions. However, Northern Ireland’s
geographical isolation and the small size of the Northern Ireland Prison Service,
accommodating the full range of prisoner categories in only three institutions, mean that
some inefficiencies are inevitable. The costs of running a prison headquarters capable of
covering the same range of issues as much larger prison services, are also proportionately
much higher in Northern Ireland. Our predecessor Committee concluded that “the
combination of a small prison estate, and the multiplicity of regimes the prison service is
required to provide within that small estate, have much to do with the difficulties the
Service is facing.”247
240 Q195
241 Q 669
242 Ev 143
243 Q 109
244 Q 193
245 Q 107
246 Q 107
247 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at
HMP Maghaberry, HC 302, paragraph 161.

62
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

185. We commend the work that the Northern Ireland Prison Service is doing to
improve the efficiency of the prison estate and to reduce the cost per prisoner place.
The implementation of efficiency measures has not been easy for either management or
prison staff.
186. However, we also conclude that the prison service is hampered by the innate
inefficiency of its buildings. In particular the inappropriate use of high security
accommodation at Maghaberry for low security prisoners, and the separated regime for
some paramilitary prisoners, increase costs. We are accordingly convinced that capital
investment is required to make the Northern Ireland Prison Service a truly first class
prison service and to release greater long-term efficiency savings.
187. The running costs of a prison estate in which low security prisoners were kept in
low security accommodation would be much lower than the current running costs. We
recommend that, rather than exclusively focussing on the worthy discipline of cost per
prisoner place, the Northern Ireland Prison Service estimate the cost of providing the
additional infrastructure that we recommend in Chapter 2, and that it estimate the
efficiency savings that would accrue. We suggest that it would then be well placed to put
the case for additional capital investment being made outside the Comprehensive
Spending Review envelope. We believe that such investment would lead to substantial
savings in the long run.
188. We question whether it is appropriate to continue to set a target of reducing the
cost per prisoner place. Our predecessor Committee recommended in 2004248 that this
target be abandoned for the foreseeable future and we are disappointed that this
recommendation was not accepted. At that time, the Government undertook to “seek
the most useful way to present the extra costs of separation” and, at the very least, we
believe that the figure used for measuring the cost per prisoner place should be one
which excludes the costs of running the separated regime.
189. The Northern Ireland Prison Service accommodates a disproportionate number of
remand prisoners. We recommend that the same political priority be placed on
speeding up the process of bringing cases to trial as currently exists with regard to
reducing the cost per prisoner place.

248 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, The separation of paramilitary prisoners at
HMP Maghaberry, HC 302, paragraph 89.

63
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Formal minutes
Wednesday 5 December 2007
Members present:
Sir Patrick Cormack, in the Chair
Mr David Anderson
Mr Gregory Campbell
Rosie Cooper
Mr Christopher Fraser
Mr Stephen Hepburn
Lady Hermon

Kate Hoey
Dr Alasdair McDonnell
Mr Denis Murphy
Stephen Pound
Sammy Wilson

Draft Report (The Northern Ireland Prison Service), proposed by the Chairman, brought
up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 189 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Several Papers were order to be reported to the House for printing with the Report.
[Adjourned till 3.45pm on Wednesday 12 December.

64
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Witnesses
Wednesday 9 May 2007
Ms Anne Owers, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and Mr Kit Chivers, the Chief
Inspector of Criminal Justice Northern Ireland

Page

Ev 1

Wednesday 16 May 2007
Mr Gerry McAleer, Chairman, and Mr Bob Cromie, Deputy Chairman, Prison
Governors Association

Ev 12

Wednesday 6 June 2007
Mr Brian Coulter, Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Mr David McCall,
Principal Administrative Officer
Mr Finlay Spratt, Branch Chairman (Northern Ireland) and Ms June Robinson, Area
Secretary, Prison Officers’ Association

Ev 23
Ev 29

Wednesday 13 June 2007
Mr Ronnie Spence CB, Chairman, Mr Brian McCaughey, Chief Probation Officer
and Mr Paul Doran, Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Northern Ireland Probation
Board
Mrs Olwen Lyner, Chief Executive, and Mr Pat Conway, Director of Services,
Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

Ev 39

Ev 46

Wednesday 27 June 2007
Mr Peter Smith QC, Chairman of Commissioners, Dr Ronald Galloway,
Commissioner, and Mrs Elsbeth Rea OBE, Commissioner, Life Sentence Review
Commissioners

Ev 54

Wednesday 4 July 2007
Mrs Joan Doherty, Chairman, Mr James Joseph McAllister, Chairman and Mr
Christopher “Jimmy” McClean, Chairman, Independent Monitoring Board
Professor Monica McWilliams, Chief Commissioner, Mr Eamonn O’Neill,
Commissioner and Dr Linda Moore, Researcher, Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission

Ev 63
Ev 72

Wednesday 10 October 2007
Rt Hon Baroness Corston, a Member of the House of Lords and Ms Jenny Hall,
Secretary to the Corston Review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the
criminal justice system

Ev 83

Tuesday 16 October 2007
Dr Philip McClements, Associate Director for Healthcare, Northern Ireland Prison
Service, Professor Roy McClelland, Emeritus Professor of Mental Health, Queens
University and Dr Ian Bownes, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist

Ev 92

Wednesday 24 October 2007
Robin Masefield, Director, Max Murray, Deputy Director, Head of Operations,
Mark McGuckin, Deputy Director, Finance and Personnel, Northern Ireland Prison
Service.

Ev 101

65
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Wednesday 21 November 2007
Paul Goggins MP, Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and Robin Masefield,
Director, Northern Ireland Prison Service

Ev 116

List of written evidence
1

Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS)

Ev 128

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Ev 152

Letter from the Chairman of the Committee to Mr Paul Goggins MP,
Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office

Ev 152

Gregory Campbell MP

Ev 153

British Irish Rights Watch

Ev 154

The Butler Trust

Ev 158

Committee on the Administration of Justice

Ev 160

Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust

Ev 164

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice

Ev 165

10 Life Sentence Review Commissioners

Ev 168

11 Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

Ev 170

12 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Ev 172

13 Prison Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

Ev 178

14 Prison Governors Association

Ev 182

15 Prison Officers’ Association

Ev 183

16 Probation Board for Northern Ireland

Ev 188

17 University and College Union

Ev 191

18 Mr Jeremy Bryce

Ev 191

19 Professor Phil Scraton, Queen’s University

Ev 193

20 Mr Oliver Shanks

Ev 196

List of unprinted evidence
The following memoranda have been reported to the House, but to save printing costs
they have not been printed and copies have been placed in the House of Commons
Library, where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary
Archives, and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection should be
addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel.
020 7219 3074). Opening hours are from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.
Threshold
Include Youth
Independent Monitoring Boards
Opportunity Youth

66
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

List of Reports from the Committee during
the current Parliament
The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets
after the HC printing number.

Session 2006–07
First Report

Draft Protocol for Community-based
Restorative Justice Schemes

(HC 87)

Second Report

The Work of the Committee in 2006

(HC 294)

Third Report

Tourism in Northern Ireland and its Economic
Impact and Benefits

(HC 119)

First Special Report

Draft Protocol for Community-based
Restorative Justice Schemes: Government
Response to the Committee’s First Report of
Session 2006-07

(HC 475)

Second Special Report

Tourism in Northern Ireland and its Economic
Impact and Benefits: Government Response to
the Committee’s Third Report of Session 200607

(HC 545)

First Report

Education in Northern Ireland

(HC 726)

Second Report

The Work of the Committee in 2005

(HC 928)

Third Report

Organised Crime in Northern Ireland

(HC 886))

First Special Report

The Work of the Committee in 2004:
Government Response to the Committee’s
Fourth Report of Session 2004-05

(HC 393))

Second Special Report

The Functions of the Office of the Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: Responses
by the Government and the Office of the Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to the
Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2004-05

(HC 394)

Third Special Report

The Parades Commission and Public Processions
(Northern Ireland) Act 1998: Government
Response to the Committee’s Second Report of
Session 2004-05

(HC 395)

Fourth Special Report

The Challenge of Diversity: Hate Crime in
Northern Ireland: Government Response to
the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 200405

(HC 396)

Fifth Special Report

Air Transport Services in Northern Ireland:
Government Response to the Committee’s
Eighth Report of Session 2004-05

(HC 529)

Sixth Special Report

Ways of Dealing with Northern Ireland’s Past:
Interim Report – Victims and Survivors
Government Response to the Committee’s

(HC 530)

Session 2005–06

67
EMBARGOED ADVANCE COPY:
Not to be published in full, or in part, in any form before
00.01 hrs Wednesday 12 December 2007.

Tenth Report of Sessions 2004-05
Seventh Special Report

The Functions of the Northern Ireland Policing
Board Responses by the Government and the
Northern Ireland Policing Board to the
Committee’s Seven Report of Session 2004-05

(HC 531)

Eight Special Report

Decision to Cease Stormont Prosecutions

(HC 814)

Ninth Special Report

Organised Crime in Northern Ireland:
Government Response to the Committee’s
Third Report of Session 2005-06

(HC 1642)

Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side