We must help our prisons in the fight against coronavirus
The State is charged with the protection and care of those in custody. That is a responsibility we should carry out with the utmost seriousness and diligence
At the time of writing this article, 113 prison staff and 75 prisoners are reportedly in isolation showing symptoms of coronavirus. We can reasonably assume these numbers will increase quickly and significantly.
Confronted with arguably the greatest challenge Britain has faced in its peacetime history, our thoughts naturally turn first to our loved ones, to the preparedness of the NHS, as well as to the immediate financial concerns that have been brought about by this cruel pandemic. That hierarchy of priority is perfectly understandable, but we must not forget the very real threat also posed to our other, often unfairly overlooked, frontline service: our prisons.
It is clear to me that in our response to this crisis we must be guided by pragmatism. The pressure currently being felt across prison estates in countries at a more acute stage in the fight against the virus offers a warning of what could be to come if we fail to take appropriate steps now.
Violent riots in Italian prisons have killed 12, whilst in Iran 85,000 inmates have been released in a bid to prevent widespread chaos. Geography has bought us a small but precious window in which we can learn from both the successes and mistakes of our international partners. In our strategy to overcome Covid-19, including in prisons, it is one we cannot afford to waste.
To start, that means recognising that prisons are a potential hotbed for viral transmission. They are overcrowded, understaffed and often dirty. Indeed, as the Justice Committee recently estimated, there is a £900m backlog in prison maintenance, including in the refurbishment of cells, showers, and cooking and eating facilities, many of which are simply not fit for purpose. Rectifying these considerable deficiencies will take time – and more than is currently available to us in fighting this disease. That being said, if we move now, and at speed, I am confident we can minimise its impact.
Above all else, as in our homes, hospitals and workplaces, we need to do the basics right. Improving hygiene is essential, and I am pleased ministers have confirmed increased handwashing facilities are available to all prisoners, including in shared areas. It has also been reassuring to see the emphasis the MoJ has placed on communication.
Inmates will naturally be concerned about family and friends on the outside so maintaining contact with their loved ones will be vital to ensuring order, as will access to updates via the National Prison Radio and through disseminating health guidance.
While the Government is determined to operate normal regimes with minimum disruption for as long as it can, it’s inevitable that a certain degree of adaptability will be required. Changes must be properly managed to avoid inflaming what is already a volatile environment. Flexibility will also have to be exercised in making additional staff available, with ministers confirming that operational staff working in headquarters will be redeployed to boost the frontline.
We will have to think carefully about setting aside ample space in which infected prisoners can be isolated (can, for example, separate buildings be designated for this purpose?), and it may become necessary to release some individuals early, especially those who are elderly, of low risk and have underlying health conditions. Time will tell, but the contingency plans should be in place regardless.
Ultimately, just as we rightly demand that our carers, bus drivers, police officers and, of course, medical professionals are provided with the best possible protection whilst they continue to work – allowing the nation to maintain some semblance of normality – so too we should expect nothing less for our dedicated prison staff.
Equally, whatever their crime, the State is charged with the protection and care of those in custody. That is a responsibility we should carry out with the utmost seriousness and diligence, with our policies and actions reflecting that commitment.
Sir Robert Neill is Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst and chair of the Justice Select Committee
--oo00oo--
Frances Crook of the Howard League has suggested a comprehensive number of initiatives in order to significantly reduce the prison population in response to the unprecedented risks posed by the current viral emergency:-
Coronavirus in prison: Measures that could be considered
The State is charged with the protection and care of those in custody. That is a responsibility we should carry out with the utmost seriousness and diligence
At the time of writing this article, 113 prison staff and 75 prisoners are reportedly in isolation showing symptoms of coronavirus. We can reasonably assume these numbers will increase quickly and significantly.
Confronted with arguably the greatest challenge Britain has faced in its peacetime history, our thoughts naturally turn first to our loved ones, to the preparedness of the NHS, as well as to the immediate financial concerns that have been brought about by this cruel pandemic. That hierarchy of priority is perfectly understandable, but we must not forget the very real threat also posed to our other, often unfairly overlooked, frontline service: our prisons.
It is clear to me that in our response to this crisis we must be guided by pragmatism. The pressure currently being felt across prison estates in countries at a more acute stage in the fight against the virus offers a warning of what could be to come if we fail to take appropriate steps now.
Violent riots in Italian prisons have killed 12, whilst in Iran 85,000 inmates have been released in a bid to prevent widespread chaos. Geography has bought us a small but precious window in which we can learn from both the successes and mistakes of our international partners. In our strategy to overcome Covid-19, including in prisons, it is one we cannot afford to waste.
To start, that means recognising that prisons are a potential hotbed for viral transmission. They are overcrowded, understaffed and often dirty. Indeed, as the Justice Committee recently estimated, there is a £900m backlog in prison maintenance, including in the refurbishment of cells, showers, and cooking and eating facilities, many of which are simply not fit for purpose. Rectifying these considerable deficiencies will take time – and more than is currently available to us in fighting this disease. That being said, if we move now, and at speed, I am confident we can minimise its impact.
Above all else, as in our homes, hospitals and workplaces, we need to do the basics right. Improving hygiene is essential, and I am pleased ministers have confirmed increased handwashing facilities are available to all prisoners, including in shared areas. It has also been reassuring to see the emphasis the MoJ has placed on communication.
Inmates will naturally be concerned about family and friends on the outside so maintaining contact with their loved ones will be vital to ensuring order, as will access to updates via the National Prison Radio and through disseminating health guidance.
While the Government is determined to operate normal regimes with minimum disruption for as long as it can, it’s inevitable that a certain degree of adaptability will be required. Changes must be properly managed to avoid inflaming what is already a volatile environment. Flexibility will also have to be exercised in making additional staff available, with ministers confirming that operational staff working in headquarters will be redeployed to boost the frontline.
We will have to think carefully about setting aside ample space in which infected prisoners can be isolated (can, for example, separate buildings be designated for this purpose?), and it may become necessary to release some individuals early, especially those who are elderly, of low risk and have underlying health conditions. Time will tell, but the contingency plans should be in place regardless.
Ultimately, just as we rightly demand that our carers, bus drivers, police officers and, of course, medical professionals are provided with the best possible protection whilst they continue to work – allowing the nation to maintain some semblance of normality – so too we should expect nothing less for our dedicated prison staff.
Equally, whatever their crime, the State is charged with the protection and care of those in custody. That is a responsibility we should carry out with the utmost seriousness and diligence, with our policies and actions reflecting that commitment.
Sir Robert Neill is Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst and chair of the Justice Select Committee
--oo00oo--
Frances Crook of the Howard League has suggested a comprehensive number of initiatives in order to significantly reduce the prison population in response to the unprecedented risks posed by the current viral emergency:-
Coronavirus in prison: Measures that could be considered
I was pleased to see that the government intends to ease prisons by increasing the number of people released on home detention curfew. This is a sensible and safe measure that is administratively efficient and quick to achieve. There are other measures that could be considered to take some of the pressure off prisons. I have written to the Secretary of State for Justice, making these suggestions.
This is important for staff at a time when many prisons are grossly crowded and insanitary. We already know that some officers and prisoners have been diagnosed with coronavirus and the very last thing we want is for prisons to become like 18th-century breeding grounds of disease.
John Howard, the charity’s namesake, did much to improve healthcare inside gaols three centuries ago; this should not be necessary today. We should be reducing the flow of people into the most stressed prisons and we should be looking to ease people who could be safely released back out into the community. None of this would require legislation, but it does require leadership and self-control by the courts.
Remand
Government could send a message to judges and magistrates that any decision to remand to custody should be subject to anxious scrutiny in light of the virus. Remanded prisoners are often the most volatile and face an uncertain future and so are challenging to manage, requiring skilled staff. They will present problems in dealing with a pandemic if it enters the prison, particularly if the courts are struggling to deal with cases.
It is disappointing that in January the number of children remanded to custody went up from 232 to 264 on the previous month. This is the highest number of remands in any month since April 2015.
In the case of children, the message could be that children should not be remanded unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances. The majority of children who are remanded do not subsequently get a custodial sentence. Should it be absolutely necessary to remand a child to secure custody, children should not be placed in prison service establishments which are unsafe and insanitary.
Short sentences
The churn in the prison population created by short sentences is particularly problematic at this time. Building on the government’s own research that short sentences are counter-productive, it would be timely to send a clear message to judges and magistrates that consideration should be given to avoiding short sentences, particularly for breaches, time in lieu for non-payment of fines and for non-violent and non-sexual offences.
People given short sentences tend to be the homeless and rootless, and may be more prone to communicable diseases, and therefore they increase the risk of coronavirus transmission inside prisons.
Reducing recall to prison
More than 3,500 men and women were recalled to prison for just a few days between July and September 2019 under the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda.
These are not dangerous offenders but people initially sentenced to short prison terms who have now not managed to comply with administrative rules set by the community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) – who are known to be failing to support people released from prison.
Liz Truss, when she was Secretary of State, issued guidance to CRCs and the National Probation Service to avoid these recalls, and this guidance could be strengthened as it seems to have been ignored.
Additional days for breaches of prison discipline
In the last four years, the number of additional days imposed on people in prisons for breaches of prison discipline in England and Wales has more than doubled to 380,169. Scotland does not impose any additional days.
Independent adjudicators follow guidelines issued by the Chief Magistrate, who could issue guidance to avoid imposing them where possible for the time being or suspend them.
Prison governors have the discretion to remit additional days. Some prisoners are only in prison due to serving these extra days and have not been considered for remission. Remission should be considered in all such cases and governors should be directed to remit additional days imposed on all prisoners where it is safe to do so.
Executive release
Parole hearings are going to become increasingly harder to hold as members will be reluctant to travel and may get sick, and prisons could even be on lockdown.
The Secretary of State has the discretion to release almost all determinate prisoners who can be safely released. There is a long history of this provision being used appropriately, though its use has declined in recent years.
The power could be used for those who can be safely released, including those who have been recalled to prison on determinate sentences but have not been convicted of further offences.
Compassionate release
The elderly, the sick and the vulnerable could be offered release under the discretion afforded to the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Section 36 provides for the release of a prisoner on licence in “exceptional circumstances”.
Consideration could be given to clarifying that the onset of a pandemic described by the Prime Minister as “the worst public health crisis in a generation”, with a high death rate for the older population, may well constitute “exceptional circumstances”.
The prison population is ageing. There are some 1,700 people, mostly men, in prison over the age of 70. Research from the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention shows a coronavirus mortality rate of more than 14 per cent of confirmed cases in people over 80 and 8 per cent of confirmed cases in people over 70.
This is much higher than the overall average death rate of 2 to 3 per cent, and suggests older people are significantly more at risk of death from the virus. The mortality rate of older people in prison is likely to be even higher.
Existing early release provisions for short-term child prisoners with sentences under four years
Statutory guidance for children being considered for Home Detention Curfew and for early release from Detention and Training Orders creates a presumption in favour of early release in most instances. In certain cases, it is a matter of exceptional circumstances.
Decision-makers should be advised that the pandemic enhances the weight to be applied to the presumption in favour of early release and may well constitute “exceptional circumstances” when considering cases where the presumption does not apply.
Parole
Prisoners who have been deemed safe for release by the Parole Board should be released to relieve the stress on the system. This could affect prisoners whose release has been directed but who are awaiting spaces in approved premises or waiting for 21 days to pass in accordance with the reconsideration mechanisms. These prisoners have been scrutinised by the Parole Board and deemed safe for release, and a binding direction for release has been issued.
One option would be to reduce the 21-day period to seven days on the basis that the Secretary of State can approach those who are likely to be concerned to see whether there are cogent grounds for review.
Consideration could be given as to what arrangements can be made to increase capacity in approved premises or suitable alternatives, as we have found in our casework that young men are detained unnecessarily in prison awaiting a place in approved premises but in fact could safely – indeed in many cases, more safely – go straight to a supportive family.
Managing licence conditions without requiring face-to-face contact
All licences currently include requirements to attend meetings with probation officers. This requirement should be relaxed and alternative measures such as telephone meetings should be put into place to protect probation staff and prisoners from unnecessary contamination.
An amnesty
In extremis an amnesty could be considered whereby all prisoners serving short sentences of less than a year are released, or people coming towards the end of a longer sentence. Of course, this is a measure that is commonly taken in other countries and is not without precedent in this country.
As I said at the outset, this is primarily aimed at protecting staff, the officers, nurses, probation and administrative staff who are currently being asked to work in the most disgusting and dangerous conditions. I genuinely do not believe that this would put the public at increased risk and I think that victims of crime would understand that this is the right thing to do to keep us all safe.
Frances Crook
Probation is expecting probation workers to supervise these people and to see them face to face in probation offices and hubs. We are not emergency workers. We do not have protective wear. Anything short of hazmats suits, gloves and respirator masks is not enough. I am sick of hearing and reading about probation managers and workers “stepping up” when they are in fact going against all government and WHO advice by spreading the virus to offenders, to each other and then home to their families.
ReplyDeleteProbation unions where are you, Napo, Unison, GMB? Napo has stopped seeing members face to face and are working from home. It’s time to order members to not see offenders face to face and to work from home. This is life or death. I want life.
Jim, please write a hard hitting post about this for probation managers and unions to read.
Anon 08:18 "Jim, please write a hard hitting post about this for probation managers and unions to read."
DeleteI and I suspect many readers will have sympathy with what you say, but you must understand I and this blog are regarded as completely 'persona non-grata' in official circles. In this environment it's not what I might say that is important, it's what YOU as readers say that's not only important, it's VITAL.
I so VERY much agree!!!
ReplyDelete627 deaths in Italy in the last 24 hours. Ffs We must wake up
ReplyDeleteJim, your blog has proved invaluable to many of us, now perhaps more than ever! Thank you
ReplyDelete"As you would expect we will lead by example within our sphere of influence."
ReplyDeleteI thought that aiding & abetting Grayling's TR via the staff transfer agreement was a shameful act which metaphorically threw members under a bus.
This disgraceful negligence of failing to protect members' lives is directly analogous to *actually* pushing members under buses.
"we can be pretty confident that next week will see the announcement of major steps across the Criminal Justice and Family Court systems that will fundamentally change the way in which the majority of our members undertake their work."
Napo - your 'sphere of influence' is the square root of fuck all.
Napo are clearly not competent at the top . They have been dysfunctional for their role for a long time. When this passed the freeloading must come to an end of members don't all leave in the next few months.
DeleteOn the subject of probation workers still having to see people face to face in tight interview rooms/offices without protection. Our interpreter providers, Language Direct, sent our Northern CRC an email yesterday explaining that they will no longer be able to supply interpreters in a face to face setting as in relation to covid19, it is 'dangerous and not advisable to do so' so they can only provide telephone services until further notice.
ReplyDelete…….someone wake up FFS
There is alot of hightened tensions when you hear the PM say self isolate and keep your distance. We as probation staff across all the disciplines are basically told unless you have a condition or family member that is vunerable that requires self isolation you will continue to work in the office. What does that mean, well basically those that have to work from home do, those that cant have more service users to see. There is no suspension of face to face meeting. This is NOT the WFH colleagues fault. However this ultimately will divide staff and cause resentment. We at the end of the day are all human and very concerned about our own health and well being of ourselves and family. So action needs to be taken and now, not in a few weeks time.
ReplyDeleteGetting sick of this. Seems OK to use video link and telephone conference when they want us to to reduce cost measures unless the all powerful parole board make face to face demands, but not in this time where seeing people puts our health at risk. Why is the government advice being ignored or has there been a silent agreement it does not apply to the CJS. They refuse our pay increment on time and tell us to step us. What a cheek and disregard for employees health. Why dont senior management come to the front line to help out, too busy telling us to carry on and actively discouraging working from home so they can show us whose boss. Will they be accountable for any serious health impacts on staff, probably not. I'm not saying we shouldn't carry out tasks when they relate to public safety just that unless it is absolutely necessary and totally unavoidable to do it face to face then we should not be having close contact or working in some of which are dirty open plan offices or prison wings which are rife for spreading disease.
ReplyDeleteI totally understand the concerns being expressed by probation staff about face to face interviews.
DeleteI think it's an horrendous situation and shouldn't be happening.
But it's not a one-way street. The same risks apply to service users addending interviews.
I understand that sitting in an enclosed space face to face with clients multiple times a day must increase the risks of infection, but that increased risk must also mean an increased risk to the service user too?
When I think of it in reverse like that, it throws up some interesting questions in my mind.
If multiple service users are attending face to face interviews on a daily basis, in small interview rooms that aren't sanitised between interviews, and then leaving the building to go back to their families or interact with the gereral population, then that can only increase the risk of spreading the infection.
If social distancing is the way to keep safe and reduce the spread of the virus, then it must apply in totality, you can't pick and choose where to apply it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/coronavirus-14million-at-risk-people-17953187.amp
'Getafix
Absolutely agree and they are very vocal about it. We have had a few flare ups in reception areas. Thankfully the UPW and Group programmes have now been suspended. However on the other side of things the more vunerable groups, have nowhere to go and that in itself causes even bigger problems for staff. As we can't send them to the normal places for foodbank vouchers or help with housing as these services have all but ceased. Its just a big mess to be honest.
DeleteIf any service users are reading this blog they should go to the attorneys and get some advice.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the risk mentioned towards offenders reporting and didn't imply that concerns only related to staff just raised the lack of employers concern with staff welfare. As a PO it is hard to make decisions about forcing people to attend and that's why clearer management direction is needed. We can say telephone reporting but if something has repercussions would be blamed. It is vauge advice so responsibility rests in us if we choose to make decisions on attending or not attending. The risk is to all but as employees we are entitled to consideration under a duty of care.
ReplyDelete