Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: The effect of paramilitary activity and organised crime on society in Northern Ireland, HC 24
Wednesday 22 February 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 22 February 2023.
Members present: Simon Hoare (Chair); Sir Robert Buckland; Stephen Farry; Mary Kelly Foy; Sir Robert Goodwill; Claire Hanna; Carla Lockhart; Jim Shannon; Mr Robin Walker.
Questions 380 - 404
Witnesses
I: Ronnie Armour, Director-General, Northern Ireland Prison Service; Steven McCourt, Director of Rehabilitation, Northern Ireland Prison Service.
Witnesses: Ronnie Armour and Steven McCourt.
Chair: Good morning, colleagues. We have two panels this morning, first from the Northern Ireland Prison Service and then from two faith leaders. We look forward to hearing from the four today. We are very grateful to our witnesses for joining us on this further session on the effect of paramilitary activity and organised crime on society in Northern Ireland.
Gentlemen, you will be aware that I always start every session with the same question. I have got not bored of asking it, but everybody else has got bored of hearing my voice asking it, so I am going to ask Mr Jim Shannon if he would open the batting for this first session with his dulcet tones.
Q380 Jim Shannon: You are very welcome, Ronnie and Steven. It is good to see you on the screen, if not in person to shake your hands, but that is by the way.
Being pithy, and being under a request from the Chair to do so, I will go straight to the question about the use of terminology in relation to paramilitaries. As I have said in the past on this Committee, using the example “for God and Ulster”, God is a long time gone and so is Ulster. Paramilitary groups masquerade under those things, but the fact is that they really are criminals.
This is my question to you. Is it time to face up to that fact and refer to them as what they are, criminals? The reason I say that is that they have a lot of coercive control over communities. As a Committee, under your chairmanship, Chair, we have an inquiry on this very issue. It is important for us to understand how it affects communities. I can say how it affects my community, but I am very keen to get your thoughts on that.
Ronnie Armour: How individuals are described in the community is not something on which I can comment, but perhaps it might be useful and helpful to the Committee to explain what we in the Prison Service have been trying to do over the past six years.
When I took over as director-general in 2017, it was in the aftermath of a number of very significant events: the murder of two outstanding prison officers, David Black in 2012 and Adrian Ismay in 2016; and then the difficult Maghaberry inspection report of 2015.
One of the findings that the report highlighted was the impact separation has on the operation of Maghaberry prison. It is fair to say that less than 3% of the Maghaberry population is in separated accommodation, but the then chief inspector of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland concluded that, in terms of the deployment of resources, the tail was very much wagging the dog at Maghaberry.
Prisons 2020 was a continuous improvement programme that I put in place to modernise our service and to rehabilitate and resettle the prison population. Rehabilitation and resettlement are at the centre of all we do. In developing the programme, we acknowledged separation and the existence of separation. In doing so, we noted the importance of delivering change in the context of the Executive’s tackling paramilitarism programme.
Underpinning Prisons 2020 was not only a change in our focus but a change in our narrative. I am coming to the question you asked me. Our clear focus is now challenging and supporting those in our care to change their behaviours. I believe “those in our care” is an important description because it reminds us that those who are imprisoned have been placed in the care of the Prison Service by the courts.
It also reminds us and wider society of the job David Black and Adrian Ismay were doing when their lives were so cruelly taken. These two men cared for those in custody, including those in separation, and they lost their lives, as we know, doing so.
Our role as a prison service is not to judge prisoners. Nor should our focus be simply on locking them up. Our responsibility, irrespective of what individuals are imprisoned for, is to challenge and support them to change their behaviours. That is what we are trying to do with everyone placed in our care.
In the prison context, while I have to manage those with connections to paramilitary organisations separately from the rest of the prison population, referring to all prisoners as “those in our care” rather than using particular labels is, in my view, the right approach for the Prison Service.
Steven McCourt: I totally agree with Ronnie’s approach to that. Our approach in relation to rehabilitation and resettlement is to talk about people in our care, irrespective of where they are, either in separation or in the integrated population.
Q381 Jim Shannon: Ronnie, that is probably the answer I wished to hear. Thank you for that. It is about rehabilitation as well: taking them away from a background they may have had in the past to a future where they can contribute to society in a positive fashion. I welcome that.
Is there any follow-on after they leave prison? Do you liaise with any other bodies to ensure that, when they do get released, they are encouraged to stay away from their past and look towards involvement in society in a constructive way?
Ronnie Armour: Our responsibility ends when someone is released from prison, but you are absolutely right. Of course, as a service we have an interest in that. We work closely with other partners in terms of the licence conditions, for example, that may be placed on individuals leaving our care, which in some ways will help control their behaviour within the community. Yes, we absolutely have an interest in it. We work with others to try to ensure that happens.
Q382 Jim Shannon: I ask that question because yesterday I got some figures. I will quote them approximately. You will confirm them yourself. I think it was 3,867 people who leave prison. Of those, 26% are reoffending. Particularly in relation to youth, which is what I want to focus on, what is being done with other bodies to ensure that the 26% who offend again, because they move back into the same circle of friends, can be kept away?
Ronnie Armour: Those figures are looking at the prison population, so those who are released from the integrated population as well as from the separated population. We do extensive work with individuals when they are in our care, particularly with young people, to try to prepare them for release. We do everything we can, for example working with partners in the community and voluntary sector, to ensure those young people and, indeed, other prisoners leaving our care have the support they need when they return to society.
One of the big issues we have at the moment, though, is that our remand population is extremely high. Because, very often, these people are on remand and, by the time they are sentenced, their time is served and they go straight back out into the community, we do not always have the opportunity we would like to do as much work with them as we would want to do. That is a challenge for us, but, to give you reassurance, where prisoners are sentenced, we will certainly be working with them, particularly young people, to prepare them for their release.
Q383 Chair: In general terms, the separation adds to this perception: “We are rather different. We are very special. We are fighting some sort of peculiar campaign. We are very muscular and testosterone-driven” etc. Clearly, a move away from that is going to be helpful. A crime is a crime is a crime; a prisoner is a prisoner is a prisoner.
In earlier evidence sessions it has been impressed upon us that we should start to—this is an augmentation of Mr Shannon’s question—use the language of child groomers and see these things in the arena of child safeguarding. We have heard evidence from other witnesses about sexual abuse of both men and women, perpetrated by men, in order to get their way and control people within the community.
In the prison sector, we know that people who are charged with crimes against children in particular are not necessarily welcomed with an open embrace by their fellow prisoners. Would a shift in the language we use, and the use of those terms, help as a way of discouraging people from perpetrating paramilitary crimes? They will not be seen as the glory boys in prison; they will be seen as groomers and abusers.
Ronnie Armour: That is a very interesting and very valid point you are making, Chair. I can absolutely see where you are coming from in terms of what is happening in the community, but I have to look at this from a prison perspective. It is important for us to remember that we are not here as a prison service to judge people.
Q384 Chair: I am not asking you to judge. I am asking for your assessment as to whether there is a potential disincentive for people to perpetrate certain elements of paramilitary activity if the wider realm, as it were, starts to see it through the prism of those terms. They will not be seen as swaggering macho community heroes strutting around prison; they will be seen as abusers, which is what they are.
Ronnie Armour: I suspect the answer to that in a community context is yes. I was not trying to shy away from answering the question, but it is important that, within the prison context, we do not fall into the trap of labelling people or judging people. That is what the courts are there to do. Our job is to rehabilitate them, irrespective of what their crime is. In the community context, yes, I can absolutely see the point you are making.
Q385 Chair: Mr Shannon referenced rehabilitation. What deployment do you have of previous offenders who have, to use a slightly old-fashioned phrase, returned to the straight and narrow, and who are prepared to come in and say to people of a similar background, age or worldview, “There are other ways of achieving change. You do not have to do this. This is where I ended up. If you follow me, things will be better.”? What sort of cohort of people do you have to bring into prison and give those sorts of talks and mentoring?
Ronnie Armour: If you look at the youth cohort Mr Shannon was referring to, we certainly have people who come in and give their life experience to those individuals. They seek to guide them away from the path they are on. We are working with a number of different organisations in the voluntary and community sector. Many of them are faith-based organisations, but there are plenty of others as well. They will come in and talk to the young people about addiction issues, car crime and various aspects of offending. I would not put it as strongly as mentoring them, but they are certainly coming in and giving their life experience to them.
Q386 Sir Robert Goodwill: Good morning, Mr Armour. You mentioned in your opening comments that less than 3% of the prison population are separated. Does that include prisoners on remand? Numerically, how many people are on your estate at the moment?
Ronnie Armour: Today in our care we have a total of 36 individuals in separation. That is broken down into 15 males who are affiliated to loyalism and 18 males who are affiliated to dissident republicanism, and then we have three females as well. That is 36 in total. The numbers in separation are significantly down in recent years.
Q387 Sir Robert Goodwill: When did you last admit a prisoner into separation?
Ronnie Armour: I would not have an exact date, but it would certainly be within the last few months.
Q388 Sir Robert Goodwill: If we were to discontinue separation, would it be easier to do that by taking everyone who is already there or to do it gradually by not separating new prisoners when they are admitted? Just practically, how would it work if you were to try to implement this change?
Ronnie Armour: Bringing separation to an end is something we should all aspire to achieve. As the three-person panel noted when it did its report back in 2016, that should be our ultimate aim. Certainly, that is the ultimate aim of the Prison Service.
If we are talking about how to do it, first and foremost the question for me would be, “What are the circumstances that would allow us to do it?” The three-person panel concluded that, when the time was right, we should do this. They were very clear that the time was not right in 2016. While it is not for me to determine when the time will be right, I was pleased to note that in December 2022 the Independent Reporting Commission noted that it was encouraged that the Prison Service continues to give careful and thoughtful attention to how separation is wrong.
While separation undoubtedly places a significant demand on the resources of the Prison Service, the challenge of ending it should not be underestimated. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2004 concluded that it was “very likely that the new policy of separation will have to remain in place for as long as there are any prisoners in Northern Ireland who can reasonably claim a paramilitary affiliation”. They said that would be a very long time, almost 20 years onwards. They have been proved to be correct.
In answer to your question, a phased approach would certainly seem to be a more preferable way forward when the time is right.
Q389 Sir Robert Goodwill: Presumably, you could ensure that loyalists and republicans were in different prisons so you did not have a situation where they are in direct contact with groups of the other opinion or tradition.
Ronnie Armour: We currently hold all of our male separated prisoners in Maghaberry. We hold them in separate accommodation blocks. We have only three prisons in Northern Ireland, so achieving what you suggest would be very difficult. Hydebank caters for our young people and the female prison population. Magilligan is a low to medium-security prison.
It would be difficult to accommodate them in different prisons, but certainly at the moment we accommodate them separately in different accommodation blocks.
Q390 Sir Robert Goodwill: You mentioned the two terrible murders of prison officers in 2012 and 2016. To what extent do prison officers and, in particular, their families still live with the impact of the Troubles and the ongoing threats against their person? Are there practical everyday precautions that people still need to take?
Ronnie Armour: Absolutely, yes. Unfortunately, prison staff remain under a severe level of threat. The threat level against prison staff has been unchanged since 2012 following the murder of David Black, to which you have just referred. As the Committee will be aware, a severe level of threat means that an attack is highly likely. Prison staff are living under that cloud and that challenge on a daily basis.
It is important for me to say that there is absolutely no justification for this, but sadly the threat to prison staff is very real. They have seen, as you say, two colleagues murdered in the past 10 years. Others have been targeted, and a number of staff have had to move home because of the threat pertaining to them.
Many of my colleagues have been afforded physical home security measures at their home addresses. All prison officers can be issued with a personal protection weapon on application to the chief constable. The threat remains a very significant concern, and staff safety is an absolute priority for me and for the service as a whole.
I want to assure the Committee that we liaise on an ongoing basis with the PSNI to ensure that any information about staff security is up to date and is acted upon. We ensure that staff are regularly given advice on their personal security and encouraged to be alert and conscious of their personal safety at all times, but it is a very significant issue for prison staff.
Sir Robert Goodwill: I understand. Being a prison officer is a challenging job here in England, but, given the additional aspect of personal security, we very much admire people who are prepared to step up to the mark and carry out that job.
Q391 Carla Lockhart: Just on the last question that Sir Robert asked around prison officers, a large number of prison officers live and travel from my constituency in Upper Bann, as you can imagine.
I met with a group of them recently, many of whom were retired. There is a real issue around mental health within retired prison officers due to the threat they still face and the trauma they are living with as a result of their years of service to the Prison Service. What efforts are made by the Prison Service on the retired side of things?
Are you experiencing any issues or difficulties with access to PPWs for currently serving prison officers? Are officers coming to you with issues because they are not able to get their PPW application renewed?
Ronnie Armour: If I can answer the second question first, I am certainly not aware of any issues around the granting of personal protection weapons. If there are any issues or any member of staff has a concern, if they come to us, we will certainly raise that. I will raise that with the chief constable. No one has raised the issue personally with me up to this point.
On retired staff, I could not agree with you more. The mental health of retired prison staff is a very significant issue. You may be aware that, shortly after the return of the Justice Minister in 2020, she commissioned a report on this particular issue because a number of retired staff had raised with her and with me their concerns.
We received that report early in 2021. The report highlighted what we all acknowledged and knew: we had not provided sufficient support for retired prison staff. Working with the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust, we have now put a package of measures in place whereby retired staff can access the support they require.
I acknowledge that that is late in the day, but it is welcome. PRRT colleagues have been meeting with the retired prison officers associations, our colleagues in the central benevolent fund and the Prison Service Trust to explain what is on offer. We are now seeing a number of retired staff coming forward and accessing the service. That is a really positive development for us.
Q392 Mr Walker: Can I ask about the importance of learning and training opportunities for prisoners under the separated regime? You mentioned the difficult 2015 report. One of its concerning findings was the suggestion that there was less access to training opportunities for those prisoners in the separated regime. How has that changed? Can you point to where the situation lies now?
Ronnie Armour: That is absolutely a point that was raised back in 2015-16. We commissioned a report under the tackling paramilitarism programme looking at the provision of learning and skills within separation. It concluded that there was work to be done to ensure equivalence with the rest of the prison population.
I am perhaps going to ask Steven to comment a little more on the detail of that and the work we have been doing, and to provide you with some up-to-date statistics.
Steven McCourt: The report in particular that Ronnie refers to is commonly discussed as the recommendation B9 report in terms of the Executive action plan. The particular focus of that report was the development of a new model of constructive activity focused on positive education and wellbeing outcomes. That report was published in 2019. As Ronnie has quite rightly articulated, central to that recommendation was the principle that individuals within separation would have access to an equitable level of education and other constructive activity to that available in the integrated population.
As part of that report, the review panel and the review team that undertook that study recognised the challenges faced by the Prison Service, in particular the need to maintain a category A security environment, which made the provision of constructive activity more complex than in a low-security environment.
In addition, we are also looking at economies of scale. It is difficult to justify a dedicated teaching resource for a relatively small number of prisoners, since doing so might deny constructive activity to a much larger body of prisoners in the mainstream population. In relation to our college partners that deliver the education within our prison establishments, there have been challenges with recruiting and retaining staff to teach courses within the separated regime.
Finally and, indeed, importantly is the refusal by those within the separated regime to engage with our wider prisoner development model process. Indeed, that makes it more difficult to identify needs and to plan to have them addressed. That was in the context of the challenges we faced that led to your particular question. As a prison service, we accepted those recommendations. We have moved to a new model of delivery focused on improving educational attainment for individuals and increasing access to and readiness for employment on release.
This work includes the provision of a new learning and skills facility at Maghaberry and Hydebank dedicated to those within separation. This is the first time those in separation have been allowed to participate in learning and skills outside their separated accommodation.
In essence, individuals within the separated environment now have access to the same opportunities as the integrated population. That includes a wide and varied curriculum that offers progression from entry level 1 to level 3 in a range of subjects. Indeed, during 2022 separated individuals have engaged in courses in Irish, catering, business administration, barbering, essential skills in terms of numeracy, literacy and ICT, and health and safety in the workplace. In addition, eight of the individuals within separation are studying on courses with the Open University.
Part of the report in relation to constructive activity focused on improving wellbeing outcomes for those in separation. We have improved in the delivery of courses through the use of art, music and cultural activities and the promotion of positive family ties. In addition to that, we have introduced sports and skills development, which is also delivered through our statutory, voluntary and community sector partners such as the Prison Arts Foundation, the GAA, the IFA and Belfast Metropolitan College.
Q393 Mr Walker: It sounds like a pretty comprehensive programme to provide that equity of access. You mentioned earlier the issue of refusals and that being one of the factors here. Has that continued to be an issue or have you seen that, as facilities have improved, the level of refusals has declined?
Steven McCourt: If you look at the overall statistics, 75% of the separated population are currently engaged in learning and skills. The 24 individuals registered for programmes in 2022-23 have attained 114 qualifications as at the end of January. As I said, eight individuals are currently studying with the Open University.
We had a period of delivery and an important focus on making sure it was equitable, and we now have quite a large engagement in relation to the population in separation. It would certainly be much higher than it would be in the integrated population.
Q394 Mr Walker: Just finally, part of the point about having this access to learning opportunities, skills and participation is around rehabilitation and helping people move on. Is there any evidence yet that the changes you have made in this space are contributing towards any reduction in reoffending, or is that something that will take more time to get any data on?
Steven McCourt: If you look at reoffending overall, naturally, because it is such a small population within the prison, many of whom are serving long sentences, you do not have the opportunity to follow through in a wider longitudinal study. If you look at the last proven figures for the reoffending rate, which are calculated for the 2019-20 adult cohort, overall reoffending for adult custody provision within Northern Ireland was 46.2%. For those leaving separation within that cohort, the reoffending rate was only 18%.
Mr Walker: That is interesting. Thank you.
Chair: You may not have this data to hand. I would certainly find it useful, but, if you do not, you could provide it in writing to us. You have mentioned that dissident republican paramilitaries are held in one block and loyalist paramilitaries in another. As a Committee, we have always been quite keen to establish education as one of the key things here. Is there a noticeable differential between those two cohorts with regard to literacy and numeracy skills? Is there a noticeable differential between those two cohorts with regard to reoffending?
Ronnie Armour: Chair, if you are happy, we will write to you on that so we can give you the detail you require.
Q395 Chair: Just going back very briefly to what Sir Robert Goodwill was talking about, I echo entirely his plaudits for those in the Prison Service and anybody who steps up to the plate with regard to the PSNI. Those are difficult jobs irrespective of where you are within the United Kingdom, but they are difficult-plus for those who are discharging them in Northern Ireland.
How many disciplinaries, suspensions, sackings, etc, a year do you have among prison officers who have fallen under the influence of one group or another and are effectively helping them run their businesses, etc, while they are inside?
Ronnie Armour: We have a very small number of officers each year who fall under the disciplinary procedure that would result in their dismissal. The number of people who would be involved in the type of paramilitary activity you are talking about is extremely minimal. I cannot think of any in recent years who have fallen within that particular cohort.
Chair: That is encouraging to hear.
Q396 Sir Robert Buckland: I was struck by the Director of Rehabilitation mentioning that the reoffending rate of people coming out of separation centres is 18%, which is dramatically lower than the 46% rate he mentioned prior to that. That is statistically significant. It does lend credence to the contention that separation centres work.
First of all, I am interested to know what cross-fertilisation there is between your service, DG, and the England and Wales experience of separation centres. As you know, centres in Belmarsh, Whitemoor, Frankland and other places, deal with people who there is a genuine concern about and who might proselytise their extremist opinions and views among the rest of the prison community and, therefore, corrupt or influence prisoners who do not have a terrorist background into that way of thinking.
I would be interested to know what comparisons there are and what work you do together. There is obviously a difference in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind the clear sectarian divide and the particular way in which that has to be managed, but I would be interested to know what work you do with England and Wales.
I do not think people appreciate that the decision to separate is not taken on a whim. There is a clear set of criteria that you have to apply, which can be challenged legally. No doubt you will have had a number of legal challenges to decisions to separate.
DG, could you explain that a bit more clearly to the Committee so we fully understand the rationale for separation? While I accept that it would be great to be in a situation where we no longer need it, the work that is being done by the Prison Service is reducing reoffending dramatically.
Ronnie Armour: Thank you for that comment. Very often the work that the Prison Service does in this area goes largely unnoticed. It is nice to hear my colleagues get the credit they deserve for the outstanding work they do in very difficult circumstances.
If I can deal with your issue around the criteria, you are absolutely right, Sir Robert: this is a detailed and complex process. These are not decisions that are taken lightly. You have asked me to explain to the Committee what the criteria are. It is important to say that prisoners who wish to be held in separation must first make an application when they arrive in prison. That takes time to assess. The criteria against which the assessment is made are set by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They are not something over which we as a prison service have any control.
These are the key features of the criteria. First of all, the individual must apply, as I have said. They must have attained 18 years of age. They must be a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, whose admittance to separated conditions would not normally prejudice their security and would be unlikely to prejudice the maintenance of security and good order within the prison.
An individual will come to us very often on remand. They will make their application. We will assess against those criteria based on the information we will receive, for example, from the police to give us the background. We are not in a position to judge whether they are a member or a supporter, but we will take the intelligence information that comes to us.
It is important to say that “a supporter of a proscribed organisation connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland” means a person whom the Secretary of State is satisfied has been actively involved with such an organisation within the last 10 years or so or, in exceptional circumstances, longer ago than the 10-year period.
Decisions on who can be admitted to separation are made on behalf of the Secretary of State using the criteria I have outlined. In practical terms, those decisions are taken here at Prison Service headquarters in a largely non-contentious way because we apply the criteria. You are absolutely right in saying that we can face legal challenge. Separated prisoners will be very quick to challenge, as will those wishing to get into separation. We take it against that backdrop.
To your initial question, Sir Robert, in relation to the work we do with other prison services, we work very closely with our colleagues in England, Wales, Scotland and the Irish Republic, as you would expect. The situation we are dealing with in relation to terrorism‑related offenders is, as you have quite rightly said, very different to what is happening across the water in England.
There is an information flow between the two services. As far as possible, we seek to learn from each other. If there is good practice, we will put that into place. The B9 report that Steven referred to earlier made reference to the importance of continually building on that work. Without going into all of the detail, that is certainly what we are trying to do.
Sir Robert Buckland: The striking factor in the system in Northern Ireland is that people can and will apply, which is a very important consideration here. People are asking to be separated as opposed to the system saying, “We think there is enough evidence to say that you will be separated”, which is the case in England and Wales, for example.
Ronnie Armour: Yes, absolutely.
Q397 Chair: As you mentioned earlier, your duty of care to a prisoner ends when they have served their sentence and they are released. We all know that a very good way to curtail reoffending is to ensure there is a new path that people can step on to and stay on. How does the Prison Service collaborate with other statutory agencies to reduce the likelihood of reoffending in the absence of an alternative?
Ronnie Armour: Before I hand over to Steven, who can give you some of the detail, I will just say that I have a dual role. I serve as director-general of the Prison Service, but I also serve as director of reducing reoffending within the Department of Justice. The objective there is for me to bring together colleagues from PSNI, the Department, probation and, indeed, with a cross-Government approach to try to tackle reoffending.
Steven leads that work on my behalf as the director of rehabilitation so I am going to ask him to give you a little more detail in answer to your question.
Steven McCourt: As Ronnie has outlined, there is quite considerable co-operation with our statutory partners outside the Prison Service focused on rehabilitation, where we work with probation, with other Departments across the Executive and with wider criminal justice colleagues in the Youth Justice Agency, the police and others. If we look at it purely in relation to separation, you asked about the reintegration of separated prisoners and our focus there. One of the interesting areas of the Executive action plan in relation to paramilitarism is the development of a particular desistance framework for separated prisoners, focusing on how we can support their reintegration by looking at reoffending in particular.
As part of taking forward the report and the 10 recommendations, we commissioned Ulster University to look at developing a desistance framework. We have recently received its final report, which has not been published. The research it commissioned looked in particular at two specific areas.
One was a review of literature to examine the existing strategies and programmes aimed at the reintegration of prisoners associated with terrorism and violence not only across the UK but across Europe. As Sir Robert has already outlined, that focused on the concept of countering violent extremism. More importantly for our context, it was about disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration.
The second aspect of that study was around qualitative research to identify the challenges we have in the reintegration of such prisoners. It also looked at the opportunities and suggested a number of steps and actions that we might be able to take to progress towards the delivery of a desistance framework. That piece of work has been ongoing for a number of years now. It was particularly impacted in terms of access by Covid, due to the risks it presented in prisons. Most notably, it was also impacted by the refusals of prisoners within separation to engage with the researchers.
From our perspective, more importantly and reassuringly in some ways, the outcome of the report was the development of a bespoke assessment of each individual’s strengths, needs and risks, taking account of three broad themes of reintegration: economic, political and social. The assessment, in many ways reassuringly, would be relevant to the post-release integration needs of any individual within our care. The focus was on housing, education, employment and social support, and anticipated support mechanisms within the community such as family and other pro-social relationships.
More importantly from our perspective—this leads back to our earlier discussion about whether to end separation—the report acknowledged that the political dimension could not be a matter for NIPS, noting in particular that the Independent Reporting Commission had recommended that the two Governments, the political parties and civic society should give consideration to a comprehensive process of group transition, building on the model of DDR. The first part of the research was focused on that.
As for the availability of exit routes for people in our care, linked to the first part of your question in relation to how we engage with others, as one example within the range of education and employability initiatives we have, we engage with Belfast Met on employability tutors. We are working with Department for Communities work coaches to bring their work from the community into prison and to make the joined-up approach to employability much neater.
Therefore, naturally, we work with a range of statutory, voluntary and community sector organisations to enhance employability. Indeed, we look at social clauses within contracts. We look at supporting social enterprises. We have two enterprises currently being facilitated at Hydebank Wood College, but we also work in partnership with Business in the Community on its Ban the Box campaign, which is particularly relevant in relation to people with conflict-related convictions. That asks employers to remove the criminal record checkbox from job applications. To date, that campaign has attracted about 18 employers, impacting on over 63,000 roles.
Business in the Community, in that interaction with employers, has also undertaken Seeing is Believing employment fair events in relation to prisons. At the moment our work with the Department for Communities is focused on a specific event on 9 March, which is particularly targeting those employers who already have a history and past experience of employing people with convictions.
As the last piece of the jigsaw on the employability aspect, we are about to create an employment advisory board in relation to NI, which is similar to the model that is already in place and operating in England and Wales. That is made up by the business sector, but it is about creating that long-term culture of employment in prisons both to assist people in custody in becoming job ready and, importantly, to link with employers to identify opportunities, of which this cohort is an important aspect.
Chair: Thank you for that. Good work is obviously being undertaken.
Q398 Stephen Farry: Good morning to our witnesses. I was largely going to ask you about reintegration, but both of you have covered a lot of that in your answers. Perhaps I could just pick up three particular points.
The first is for Ronnie to reflect on the unique situation of the Prison Service. You are largely inside the devolved space, but there is a residual reporting link to the Secretary of State. How is that managed? Is it smooth? Are there any potential contradictions or difficulties in that situation?
To build on the reintegration point, I will maybe direct these towards Steven. First of all, try to give an indication of the age profile of the paramilitary-designated prisoners. Are they all in Maghaberry? Would there be some in Hydebank? Flowing from that, what is the age profile within those prisoners? Are there different needs and different approaches taken to the younger prisoners associated with paramilitarism? They may well be lower in the food chain of those organisations and less deeply embedded in those structures. Is there a different approach for them?
Perhaps—this is something dear to my own heart—you could tell us a little more about the secure college concept. How is that working out? That is a very innovative approach that has been taken by the Prison Service in recent years.
Ronnie Armour: You are absolutely right: prisons fall within the devolved space. The Justice Minister has responsibility, as you know, for the operation of prisons. Separation is slightly different. While the Justice Minister will provide the accommodation and will oversee the regime the Prison Service is delivering, the admission to separation is a matter for the Secretary of State. We take that decision on his behalf. There is in place a protocol that allows the director-general to report to the Secretary of State on national security matters, if that is required. I have not had to do that in my time in post.
In answer to your question, the arrangement operates as smoothly as it can. The Secretary of State has his powers under a direction that he gives to the Prison Service, and that direction is given on an annual basis. The Justice Minister and the Justice Committee are kept fully informed and are consulted in relation to that.
Q399 Stephen Farry: To clarify, there is a tension, in the sense that dissident republicans are very clearly treated by the state as being a national security threat. There is a much more unclear and ambiguous position with regard to the loyalists. Perhaps they are not treated as national security threats. For prisons, is that more clear cut than it would be in terms of the wider policing reaction?
Ronnie Armour: In terms of prisons, we operate within the criteria for separation that I have outlined and that have been established by the Secretary of State. It is clear in that respect.
You asked about the secure college. The secure college is one of the great success stories of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. It is the first secure college opened anywhere in the United Kingdom. At the last inspection of Hydebank Wood, Her Majesty's Inspectorate, along with Criminal Justice Inspection, gave us 15 out of 16 marks for Hydebank.
The work we are doing there is outstanding. The college concept is ground-breaking. Our focus is very much on getting alongside those young people, getting them off the landing, getting them into learning and skills, ensuring they are engaged in purposeful activity and giving them the best possible opportunity we can when they go back out into the community to avoid the temptation of reoffending.
The college is going exceptionally well. The staff there do a fantastic job. All of the evidence suggests that it was right to establish the college. It has been extremely successful since we have.
Stephen Farry: That is great to hear, Ronnie. Thanks for that.
Steven McCourt: Mr Farry, on your query in relation to the age profile, that is information I do not have to hand. Certainly we can write to the Committee in relation to your other query. We will add that to the information going back to the Committee.
Suffice to say, irrespective of the age profile, the educationalists within Maghaberry and, indeed, Hydebank Wood are focused on what an individual’s needs and strengths are when drawing up individual learning plans for those within our care. Indeed, that would be tailored, looking at their aspirations, their motivation in relation to learning and their future career intentions. Then we would tailor a programme of education accordingly.
Q400 Mary Kelly Foy: Good morning, panel. While we have heard about the great work that has been done on employability, skills and reintegration, some employers will still do background checks. Could you tell us about some of the barriers there are for ex-prisoners and the relatives? For instance, are there issues with prisoners obtaining visas to the United States and other countries?
Steven McCourt: Our focus—this is probably what your question relates to—is the work of the ex-prisoners working group, which is led by the Executive Office. That looks at the release of prisoners whose offences were committed pre-1998, so before the Belfast agreement. You are quite right: the focus of that working group is on the obstacles faced by ex-prisoners and their families in terms of how they access the labour market and acquire the relevant skills. International travel is one aspect. Access to insurance is another. The Department of Justice is represented in the work of the ex-prisoners working group.
As an example of the focus given to that area, the review panel under that working group has a very specific focus. It looks at individual cases that may be brought forward. It takes those cases forward in relation to individual employers or, indeed, the Executive in terms of any discrimination that they perceive has been brought forward in this area.
As I alluded to earlier, our work with employers and in relation to the Ban the Box campaign is focused on working with employers along the same lines as the ex-prisoners working group. We are asking employers not to use the conviction of anybody within our care as an opportunity not to progress their application for employment, but to consider at the point of offering employment whether that conviction is materially relevant to the post.
Our approach, whether it be in relation to conflict-related convictions or, indeed, any person in our care, is very much along those lines of encouraging employers to look at the benefits of hiring those with convictions. We work very closely with the Executive Office in relation to the work they are taking forward.
As a slightly wider point on reintegration, under the tackling paramilitarism programme, the Executive Office has a number of specific programmes out in the community in relation to those with convictions pre-1998, looking to work with ex-prisoners and their families to address those barriers on both sides of the community. We will be looking to support that work and the learning that comes from those projects to see whether we can do anything within a prisons context to prepare people for release.
Mary Kelly Foy: Ronnie, do you have anything to add?
Ronnie Armour: I do not have anything to add. Steven has given a full answer there.
Q401 Mary Kelly Foy: He mentioned that you work alongside the review panel and the ex-prisoners working group. That is right, so you have a fairly reasonable dialogue with that group.
Ronnie Armour: Yes, absolutely.
Q402 Carla Lockhart: Thank you for your time today, gentlemen. I have two quick questions. One is around the Prison Service involving victims and survivors of the Troubles as part of its efforts to reduce reoffending. What efforts are made in this regard? How successful do you feel they have been?
Ronnie Armour: In all our work, the Prison Service is very astutely aware of the impact on victims and survivors. We are not doing any specific work with the individual groups you are highlighting at the moment, but victims generally are a focus for us. A lot of the work we do internally with individuals—using our own staff, our own psychologists and so on, along with colleagues in probation and others—is victim-centric, but it is not specific in terms of being simply the victims and survivors of the Troubles.
Carla Lockhart: That is maybe something that you could look at in future as a service.
Ronnie Armour: Yes, sure.
Q403 Carla Lockhart: This may be a slightly more difficult one to answer. You have outlined that there is continued segregation of paramilitary prisoners, which would highlight that there are paramilitary structures still operating within the Prison Service. What evidence is there of influence of, say, the Provisional in relation to republican prisoners, and likewise in terms of loyalist paramilitaries? What influence do you see from the outside world in relation to prisoners?
Ronnie Armour: In answer to your question, I am certainly aware that the analysis of the Fresh Start panel in 2016 talked about how the separated regime could serve to cement those leadership positions and links back into the community for paramilitary groupings and, indeed, could draw other individuals in.
It would be foolish of me not to acknowledge that that is a risk. The linkages between the community and the prison are undoubtedly there. It is equally true to say that individuals can and do on occasion opt to leave separation. We are very happy and willing to facilitate that. As I said, it is interesting to note that when the Fresh Start report was commissioned we had 57 prisoners in separation at Maghaberry. That is now down to 33. We are seeing a fall in the overall numbers.
This goes back to what the panel said when they were making their comments in 2016. Ultimately, it is about education and training. That is why we are putting such an effort in. We have been really successful at addressing the learning and skills issues. We are seeking to show individuals that there is another way and to broaden their horizons. There are undoubtedly links between the outside and the inside for all these groupings.
Carla Lockhart: That is quite a stark note to finish on, but thank you.
Q404 Chair: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for your time and for answering your questions this morning. We look forward to receiving in due course that written information you have agreed to provide to us. We are grateful.
Neither I nor the Committee will be at all offended if you carry on with the rest of your important working day. If you wish to stay and listen to panel 2, of course you are more than welcome to. I just ask you to turn your cameras off. Thank you again for your time this morning.