HL Deb 02 March 2004 vol 658 cc608-15

6.47 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Prison (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be approved. The order introduces a range of miscellaneous provisions requiring amendment to the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 that, in large part, will serve to provide the Northern Ireland Prison Service with powers that are already available to its counterparts in Great Britain.

The draft order provides for enabling powers for the mandatory testing of prisoners for the presence of drugs and alcohol in their body, which is a development objective of the Northern Ireland Prison Service drugs strategy. The provisions replicate enabling powers already taken by Her Majesty's Prison Service and the Scottish Prison Service in the 1990s. They provide that where the Secretary of State has authorised the commencement of testing in either case in Northern Ireland, any designated person authorised by the governor to do so may require a prisoner to provide a sample of urine or other non-intimate sample for testing for drugs or alcohol.

Mandatory drugs testing of prisoners is already a well established procedure in England and Wales and in Scotland. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has for many years been tackling its drugs problems through voluntary drugs testing arrangements. This does however have its drawbacks. There are prisoners who systematically side-step voluntary testing and thus avoid detection of possible drug misuse. The availability of the powers will act as a platform for the development of the necessary operational systems that will support the implementation of mandatory drugs testing at the appropriate time. Both mandatory and voluntary testing arrangements will act as complementary components of a comprehensive strategy aimed at reducing drugs misuse in prisons.

Many would argue that alcohol is an equally harmful drug. Recent research undertaken by Queen's University, Belfast, at Hydebank Wood Young Offenders' Centre reported that 61 per cent of inmates felt that excess alcohol had caused them to engage in the behaviour that led to their incarceration. Therefore, mandatory alcohol testing will be targeted largely at those who, as part of the rehabilitative process, become eligible for periods of temporary release from prison. Mandatory alcohol testing on return to custody will identify those individuals who have breached the conditions of their temporary release and affect consideration of future applications. It will also identify individuals who require further assistance with their dependency problems.

A further key provision in the draft order is one which affirms that a police constable may hold in his custody any person committed to prison by the court, where it is impracticable to secure that individual's immediate admission to prison. That is essentially a contingency planning measure intended to provide appropriate interim custody arrangements for prisoners in circumstances where severe operational difficulties, such as a fire or other disturbance, experienced by the prison service at any of its establishments may temporarily preclude the normal admission of prisoners.

A similar provision has been in force in England and Wales for some time. It is a sensible and practical solution to deal with any exceptional circumstances which may arise at a prison. Both the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland welcome the provision as a means of formalising existing contingency arrangements. Its use is expected to be exceptional and, where deployed, will be of limited duration.

The remaining provisions are minor amendments and repeals removing existing statutory obstacles to the full implementation of policies which promote equality of opportunity in public appointments to boards of visitors, and limit the opportunities to smuggle drugs, alcohol or other illicit substances into prisons in prisoner parcels.

The primary intent of the draft order is to provide the Northern Ireland Prison Service with powers which are already available to prison services in other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, each of the provisions will play a role in enabling the Northern Ireland Prison Service to meet the challenges which confront it, and to continue to operate as a modern and professional prison service. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order to us so clearly. It is a broadly based order that covers a number of issues that basically, as I understand it, tighten up the prison regime and its disciplines, and try to bring Northern Ireland more into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. But is it real for Northern Ireland today? How will the prison service enforce drug testing and so on for paramilitary prisoners? How will it cope, with the resources that it has, which are already under stretch?

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons made some quite relevant comments on the report by Mr Steele, a highly respected gentleman but not a politician. The committee stated: The Government's decision to implement separation, which we believe to have been taken for political reasons, was largely unwelcome to staff within the Prison Service. It was not believed that separation would result in greater safety either for prisoners or staff. It was feared that the paramilitaries would seek to take control of the separated areas as they had previously done at HMP Maze". Nothing has been learnt. The committee continued: Within the temporary arrangements which have preceded establishment of the permanent regime, there has been significant evidence of prisoners continuing to resist and challenge the management of their wings. Outside the prison, attacks on the homes of prison officers—primarily by Loyalist organisations—have continued at a high level. The report recognises that, having made the decision to implement separation, the Government cannot now turn back from it. But it asserts that the Government must pay the full cost which arises from the decision in terms of support for the prison and for its staff. The Government must 'hold the line' within the prison and ensure that no concessions are ever made to the separated prisoners which might undermine or diminish the control exercised by prison officers. Recommendations are made on a number of subjects, such as the procedure for identifying prisoners eligible for separation, and the exercise of sanctions, where questions about the operation of the proposed new regime remain". I suggest that that was a serious retrograde step.

Where are we? A website on 1 March stated that: Real IRA prisoners are believed to be on the brink of another 'dirty protest'". Marian Price of the Irish Republican Prisoners' Welfare Association commented further on that protests were always on the cards. The article continues: Hitting out at the Government's response … the DUP's Ian Paisley Jnr accused the Minister of showing 'extreme weakness and failure' in the face of pressure from dissident republican prisoners". The result of all that is that the prison service and the prisons are overstretched. As I understand it, we passed legislation to allow us to house difficult prisoners in England, but the English prisons are full. The Government's prison strategy for Northern Ireland is currently a shambles. Having said that, I see nothing in the order to which I wish to object.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order to us. From these Benches, I support the order. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may well have made good points about the way in which activities take place at present hut, in terms of laying down the rules, I am pleased to be able to support the order and the fact that it puts Northern Ireland on the same footing as the rest of the United Kingdom.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass

My Lords, although the order is largely uncontroversial and is to be welcomed in principle, it raises a number of quest ions, some of which have already been touched on in quite some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I do not intend to repeat what he said; I merely endorse his points about our prison service and the interests of those who work in it being damaged to some extent and endangered by some of the concessions made of late.

We are in a difficult situation; I suppose that we are always in a difficult situation in Northern Ireland so far as prisoners are concerned. There is influence from paramilitary organisations and other highly organised groups of people who have connections with the drugs trade in Northern Ireland. In the context of the heightened tension, we then have to ask ourselves whether the introduction of mandatory drug and alcohol testing is likely to be used to orchestrate protest or to enflame an already volatile situation.

We know that it is only too easy in Northern Ireland for those who are organised within the prison and who have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, suggested, assisted in their organisation to call on the help of friends outside, in order to intimidate prison officers. An already volatile and fragile relationship exists in our prisons, and I am not absolutely sure from what the noble Baroness told us what procedures and regulations will apply to testing. Will prisoners be selected at random? Will testing be on a rotational basis? Will prisoners be tested weekly or monthly? Will they have advance notice that they are going to be tested?

If that is the way of it, those factors will obviously make the whole process quite predictable and hence self-defeating. For example, what happens when a prisoner refuses to co-operate with regard to the testing? The offence is indicated clearly enough but are the penalties for refusing to participate in the mandatory testing undefined and too vague to be a real deterrent? Is the Minister satisfied that the physical deterrent which exists in our prisons is adequate to deter those who seek to introduce alcohol or, more specifically, drugs to prisoners?

As well as considering the difficulties which exist, can the noble Baroness tell us what drug rehabilitation programmes are in place for prisoners? While the ultimate aim must be to rid our prisons of drug and alcohol abuse, once and for all, the cure for those who are addicted is every bit as important as the deterrent. What education programmes are in place to help prisoners to come off, and to stay off, drugs not just in prison but also when they are discharged?

My final point may not seem to be of great importance but it disturbs people in Northern Ireland. I refer to the removal of the justices of the peace as members of the boards of visitors. Perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify whether justices of the peace who are at present on hoards of visitors are to be quietly and surreptitiously removed. If that is so, who is that intended to flatter? It is not welcomed by those of us who have over the years seen our justices of the peace contribute effectively as members of the boards of visitors.

In general, I support the order. However, I look forward to the Minister's reply to the several questions that I have posed.

7 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, perhaps I may mention to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that Maghaberry and the Maze are very different kinds of prisons. The former is cellular whereas we all know that the Maze is constructed on H-block lines. Therefore, I hope that the fears expressed about loss of control in Maghaberry may be a little exaggerated.

I urge the Government to do everything in their power to insulate Northern Ireland from current trends in English and Welsh sentencing and imprisonment. These are a disaster from the point of view of rehabilitation and the prevention of re-offending. In the past five years the incarceration rate in England and Wales has gone up from 125 to 141 per 100,000 population. Yet three-quarters of young offenders return to crime while seven out of 10 burglars and eight out of 10 shoplifters re-offend within two years of release. England and Wales have more life sentence prisoners than the whole of the rest of the European Union.

Because Northern Ireland is a small jurisdiction, it has a good chance of achieving co-operation between police, prison, probation and other services. Because of its lively local community groups, it has a better chance of success in crime prevention compared with England. I urge the Government, therefore, to devote energy and resources to training the front-line statutory services and to promoting statutory and voluntary co-operation. I commend the finding of the Carter report, Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime. It said: There is no convincing evidence that further increases in the use of custody would significantly reduce crime". I turn, first, to Article 3 of the order. It is most important that both magistrates and judges should continue to visit prisons to see conditions for themselves and to ask relevant questions. Some magistrates could continue to be members of boards of visitors on their own merits and because of their interest in the well being of prisoners. Will the Government confirm that they will do everything possible to encourage magistrates and judges to continue to visit prisons?

Article 4 makes possible temporary detention in police cells. We have had far too much of that already in England. Police cells are not satisfactory for holding people for anything except the briefest of periods. Holding prisoners, whether on remand or after sentence, is an unnecessary and counter-productive burden on the police. It should be avoided like the plague.

Articles 5 and 6 provide for drug and alcohol testing. As did the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I believe that even more important is the question of treatment for all addictions and forms of compulsive behaviour, including gambling. Can the Government assure us that effective forms of treatment are available, both in prison and post-release, for all prisoners willing to make use of them? Can the noble Baroness give some information or figures on the take up of the available forms of treatment?

Article 7 removes a provision allowing the sending in of food to remand prisoners. Is that really necessary? Remand prisoners are quite often acquitted and should not be deprived of the privilege unless there is clear evidence that it is being abused—for example, for the purpose of smuggling in drugs or other illegal matters. Can the noble Baroness throw some light on that? She dealt with the matter fairly briefly in her introductory remarks.

Lord Kilclooney

My Lords, the order addresses two subjects. On the participation of justices of the peace on the boards of visitors, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hylton that justices of the peace will now be removed from those boards. If they are not to be there as of right, I hope, as did the noble Lord, that they will at least be there on merit and they will continue to have a participatory role in the boards of visitors.

On the issue of prisons, I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran. He flagged up concerns which are being stated increasingly across Northern Ireland. He did so with the background that the Provisional IRA is increasingly active in the Province. Only a weekend ago, the chief constable confirmed that four members of the Provisional IRA were involved in capturing a member of the Real IRA. In that context the Government decide that the prisons should revert back to a policy of separation of republican prisoners from loyalist prisoners. In the way in which they are able to spin their message from time to time, the Government have said that it is separation but not segregation. We in Northern Ireland find it difficult to understand the difference between separation and segregation.

However, now that that is the Government's policy, I join those who have warned that we are going down a dangerous road as regards prison regimes in Northern Ireland. We have different types of republican prisoners—Real IRA; Continuity IRA; and Provisional IRA. I understand that already they have united with a single spokesman to deal with the Prison Service for all the different republican groups. Again, we are moving down a dangerous path. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, if one of those people decides not to comply with a request for testing for drugs or alcohol, what does one do when all the republican prisoners are now united in a separated part of the prison under a united leadership? Does that united leadership tell them all to go on a dirty protest? Or shall it move once again to having hunger strikes in the prisons of Northern Ireland? I believe that the Government have decided on a change of policy which is dangerous for Northern Ireland as we prepare ourselves for increased republican terrorism in the Province.

7.11 p.m.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have spoken and who have welcomed or supported the order in principle. A number of broader questions have been raised about what is happening in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland as well as specific questions about how the order will operate. I shall address the wider questions and then move on to the more specific issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the Steele review and its recommendations. The Government have accepted its recommendations that republican and loyalist paramilitary prisoners should be accommodated separately from each other and from the rest of the prison population on a voluntary basis. Our decision is in no way a reflection on the professionalism and dedication of Northern Ireland Prison Service staff in pursuing a normal, integrated regime. Indeed, noble Lords will be aware that the majority of prisoners are held in integrated conditions and we still believe that integration is the safest regime for prisoners and staff when prisoners conform and co-operate. However, we have to deal with the small minority of prisoners who now refuse that co-operation.

I reassure noble Lords that accepting those recommendations does not constitute a return to the conditions that existed at the Maze prison; and we cannot allow that acceptance to become a staging post on the road to Maze-style segregation. No one wants a return to the conditions that pertained at the Maze, where staff were threatened, intimidated and subjected to brutal attacks; and where prisoners could threaten and intimidate other prisoners with impunity.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was also concerned about the resources available to the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The additional costs relating to improvements in safety for prison officers and prisoners have been met from redeployment of existing Northern Ireland resources. Some £28 million has been committed to providing a safer home environment for officers, £7 million has been provided to support safety arrangements in Maghaberry Prison and an additional £7 million a year will be invested in supporting officers to achieve the objectives of safer regimes in that prison. So we are conscious of the need to ensure that we give full support.

Regarding the order and the concerns that were raised about co-operation, it is important that republicans have already agreed to drug testing. We really have to see how that operates before we go down the road of suggesting that it does not work.

The noble Lords, Lord Maginnis, Lord Hylton and Lord Kilclooney, raised some specific questions about how the order will apply. Testing will be random, targeted and intelligence-based. Any prisoner who fails or refuses a test will be placed on report and undergo the disciplinary process. Trained prison staff will conduct tests and samples will be analysed by an accredited laboratory. The detailed procedures and protocols for testing are still being developed and will be provided for in prison rules. I am happy to write to noble Lords when we have more information regarding those procedures and protocols.

A positive test will first be a disciplinary matter, as it is an infringement of prison rules. But, it is also an opportunity for prisoners to confront their problems and the Prison Service will want to engage with prisoners who seek support for their dependency problems. It is important to say that drug testing is part of an overall strategy. It is just one component of a comprehensive drugs strategy which will have four strands: control measures, including physical and passive dog searches and drug testing; care provision that identifies and offers support to those with dependency problems—I shall say more on that in a moment; education, in raising prison and staff awareness of the risks of drug misuse; and information-gathering and sharing, for example, monitoring drug trends in prison and the community and liaising with the police and other statutory agencies.

Initially, medical staff will be able to provide symptomatic relief of the problems that alcohol-dependent prisoners may experience through alcohol withdrawal. Prisoners will be offered opportunities to participate in drugs and alcohol programmes and Alcoholics Anonymous will provide sessions in each prison to provide ongoing support to prisoners coping with dependency problems.

Regarding drugs, we want to build a partnership approach with the community. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has appointed three community drug organisations to assist with the delivery of a range of programmes in the three prison establishments. In all prison establishments prison staff would have contact with community drug workers and it is important that the matter is not just about support while people are in prison, but about maintaining a relationship after a prisoner's release to help them to continue to live drug free. It is all about a partnership between the prisons and the voluntary drug agencies.

I was also pressed by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Hylton, on the question of JPs. I stress that the intention of the amendment is not to preclude JPs from appointment to the boards—applications from JPs will still be welcomed—but rather to reflect that all appointments to boards of visitors will be made solely on merit, following a competence-based selection process. Eight of the 51 members currently appointed to boards of visitors are justices of the peace.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about burdens on the police. I assure him that the exercise of that power will be kept to a minimum. The Prison Service does not intend to impose upon police resources unnecessarily and without justifiable reasons. Visits to prisons have long been a feature of judicial services training. So the Prison Service will welcome interest from the judiciary in the work which prisons undertake and will facilitate visits from any interested individuals from the wider criminal justice community.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also raised the issue of food parcels. Close examination of foodstuffs and fruit received in parcels revealed drugs secreted in confectionery and alcohol in fruit—particularly oranges. That has been identified through random searching. Therefore, the removal of the provisions permitting remand prisoners food stuffs in parcels will close another opportunity for drugs to be smuggled into prisons.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, pressed me on the issue of one spokesperson for republican prisoners. There is one spokesperson for RIRA and CIRA prisoners and PIRA prisoners are using their own spokesperson, so there are two spokespersons. However, the Northern Ireland Prison Service refuses to recognise these spokespersons and continues to deal with all prisoners, integrated or separated, as individuals.

I hope that I have answered the specific points that have been raised. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.