Scottish Government

Annex C: Prison Visiting Committee Literature Search (European)

INTRODUCTORY

A literature search of Prison Visiting Committees ( VCs) was conducted via the internet for comparative bodies to VCs in Europe and this provided the information below. For comparative purposes the distinctive features of a VC are that they involve voluntary lay people, often locally based, having access to prisons in a monitoring capacity. These criteria have been used to identify which other countries are considered to have equivalents to Prison Visiting Committees.

In the European context various committees monitor issues such as standards in prison although much of the focus lies with issues such as torture. In Britain VCs or equivalent have been set up in each country, each with the same aim but varying methods of practice. In the wider European context various countries have VCs or an equivalent to ensure decent and humane treatment for prisoners either at an independent level, a local or national level, and at a statutory or non-statutory level.

EUROPEAN CONTEXT

The European Committee For The Prevention Of Torture ( ECPT)

The Council of Europe's official prison monitoring body inspects penal institutions in approximately 12 countries every year. As of September 1999, a total of 41 countries belonged to the ECPT.

General Principles - The objective of the present Protocol is to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. Each State Party shall set up, designate or maintain at the domestic level one or several visiting bodies for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment (hereinafter referred to as the national preventive mechanism).

National Preventive Mechanisms ( NPMs)

Existing national visiting mechanisms - The Protocol has not, as of May 2004, entered into force, and no NPMs have been established according to its provisions. However, bodies that visit places of detention do exist, in a variety of forms, in many countries. European examples are given later in this paper. Outwith Europe these include the Bahamas - Visiting Committee, Brazil - Inspection mechanisms, India - The National Human Rights Commission's visits to places of detention, Morocco - Prison visits by national NGOs, Uganda - Uganda Human Rights Commission.

Amnesty International believes that the principles contained in the Amnesty Website http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGIOR510042004, which include establishment by law, independence, and full access to all relevant information, should guide the establishment of national preventive mechanisms ( NPMs).

BRITISH PRISON VISITING COMMITTEES (OR EQUIVALENT)

NORTHERN IRELAND

Currently Northern Ireland has a Board of Visitors ( BOV) appointed by the Secretary of State for each of its three prisons. A Visiting Committee ( VC) is appointed by the Secretary of State for the Young Offenders Centre. The Board is required to visit the prison or young offenders' centre regularly and satisfy itself as to the treatment of prisoners, the facilities available to them and the cleanliness and adequacy of prison premises. They must also consider requests and complaints made by prisoners to the Board and report matters of concern to the Governor, or in serious cases, the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State receives an annual report from the BOVs and VC on their activities together with any advice or suggestions they may wish to give. The Secretary of State will normally ask the Director General to respond to matters raised.

We are in conversation with Northern Ireland who are currently undergoing a review of their BOV.

This is a close equivalent to VCs.

ENGLAND AND WALES (Combined as one jurisdiction under the Home Office)

Independent Monitoring Boards ( IMBs) perform a 'watchdog' role on behalf of Ministers and the general public in providing a lay and independent oversight of prisons and immigration removal centres. They play an important role in ensuring that prisoners and detainees are being cared for decently and with humanity. Each Board is independent of the establishment it monitors and submits an annual report to the Home Secretary. Board members are encouraged to visit the prison on a regular basis and are also required to meet regularly to consider various issues brought to their attention. Board members can access the establishment at any time in order to talk to the staff, inmates or detainees, hear their concerns and check on the conditions they are living and working in - out of the sight and hearing of a member of staff if necessary.

Appointments To Boards

Board members are appointed by the Home Secretary but act independently of the Home Office. Currently there are around 1800 members working in 137 prison establishments and 9 immigration removal centres throughout England and Wales. In making appointments the Home Secretary considers a range of applications from people who have the necessary skills and experience to work as a member.

Although IMBs are independent they are coordinated by a central Secretariat based in HM Prison Service Headquarters. Prisons were managed directly by the Home Office until 1993 at which point HM Prison Service was created as an agency responsible for the Operational Management of prisons. All prisons in England and Wales are subject to inspection. The Inspectorate undertakes about 20 full inspections each year.

This is a close equivalent to VCs.

Prisons Inspectorate and Prisons and Probation Ombudsman - England and Wales

The Chief Inspector is authorised to inspect all prisons, remand centres and young offender institutions holding men, women and young people in England and Wales. During a full inspection the team of inspectors looks at the way prisoners are treated; the quality of the regime including the opportunities for prisoners to work and receive education; how the establishment prepares prisoners for release; the morale of prisoners and staff; the quality of health care; how the establishment is managed; and the physical conditions of the buildings.

The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman is appointed by and reports to the Home Secretary. The Ombudsman investigates complaints from prisoners and those subject to probation supervision. The Ombudsman is independent of both the Prison Service and the National Probation Service ( NPS).

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

According to Irish regulations, the main channels for prisoners' complaints are the prison governor, the Visiting Committees, the prison's Chaplain and a representative of the Minister.

A visiting committee is an independent statutory 'watchdog', appointed by Ministers, on behalf of the public to supervise the treatment of prisoners. Prisoners have free access to the visiting committee and may make complaints to them about how they are being treated. Each year, each committee makes a report to the Minister. This appears to be a continuation of the same historical processes as the UK.

One of the main tasks of the Visiting Committees is to deal with requests and complaints from prisoners. The Visiting Committees do not have the power to give recommendations nor to redress any grievance complained of. Some have argued that the lack of follow up procedures and the limited power of the Visiting Committees seriously impair the effectiveness of this complaint channel. In terms of Irish legislation, neither the Ombudsman nor the Ombudsman for Children can deal with complaints related to the prison administration. There is no specific prisons Ombudsman.

This is a close equivalent to VCs.

WIDER EUROPEAN EXAMPLES

Many countries have some form of national external inspection or oversight of prisons, although the arrangements are very diverse. In France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, for example, there are special supervisory judges. Judicial authorities also exercise oversight of prisons in Belgium, Poland and Slovenia. In a number of Eastern European countries inspection is carried out by the prosecuting authorities. In a number of countries ombudsmen also have a responsibility to oversee prisons or can if they wish visit prisons. In other states, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands local committees with varied oversight powers are attached to individual prisons.

SWEDEN

Most matters concerning prisoners are decided on by the local prison authorities, but some decisions are taken by the National Prison and Probation Administration. If a prisoner is dissatisfied with a decision taken by a local prison authority, he or she may appeal to the National Prison and Probation Administration to rescind the decision. If the prisoner is still dissatisfied, he or she may appeal to the county administrative court. Prisoners who feel that they have been treated unjustly may lodge a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Generally letters of complaint are forwarded without being scrutinised. It is required that the prisoner should be present when a letter or other post is opened if this can be conveniently arranged.

The Swedish Prison and Probation Administration regularly conduct inspections of prisons. It should also be stressed that access to prison is also provided for press, national and international organizations. It is part of Swedish political and social policy that there is an open attitude towards the information flow concerning the activity of all branches of state administration. Further research is being conducted to clarify whether this involves lay personnel and/or local representatives.

In Sweden and Denmark more autonomy and flexibility seems to be allowed at the local level, which could explain the apparently lesser interest in audit or inspection. The Swedes have confirmed that they have no general inspectorate but place responsibility for these functions mainly on the heads of regions and on the heads of units in the central administration, e.g. security, legal department, programmes, etc. They also use 'target values' for maintaining standards in all local units in the organisation.

This is not equivalent to VCs as it is a national paid system.

NETHERLANDS

The overall monitoring of the prison services in the Netherlands is undertaken by the Supervisory Committee whose members are appointed by the Justice Minister in terms of article 7 of the Penitentiary Principles Act. One Supervisory Committee is established for each prison, or sometimes a wing of a prison. To deal with complaints, a Complaint Committee is appointed by the Supervisory Committee (article 62(1) Penitentiary Principles Act).

One of the duties of this Committee is to oversee the enforcement of custodial sentences in the prison or wing to which it is allocated. Irrespective of this broad mandate, the work of this Committee is very complaint-centred. Additionally, the Supervisory Committee is limited to providing advice and recommendations to the prison governor only in relation to complaints received. As established in law, the Supervisory Committee does not have the duty or authority to undertake regular inspections of the prisons.

A positive aspect of the Supervisory Committee is its regular monthly presence in the prisons. However, the Supervisory Committee must communicate its intention to carry out a visit to the prison authorities. In addition, in order to attend the monthly visit, prisoners have to complete a request slip. If a prisoner has to submit the completed request slip to prison staff it invariably means that the prison authorities will become aware of the names of the prisoners wishing to meet with the Supervisory Committee. Therefore it is sometimes argued that prisoners who want to meet the Committee may not complain because they feel that they could suffer reprisals from the prison authorities.

The Minister of Justice has the power to dismiss Committee members. This raises some issues in relation to the independence of the Supervisory Committee. Additionally, the prison governor is required to attend the monthly meetings of the Committee; while this is a positive aspect in providing a mechanism for communication between the Committee and the prison authorities, the presence of the prison governor could affect the freedom of the Committee when discussing the complaints from the prisoners.

In 1998, the Commission for the Supervision of the Treatment of Persons Deprived of their Liberty (also called the Kleinmoedig Commission) was established in the Netherlands Antilles. It is an independent commission broadly tasked to guarantee the integrity of persons deprived of their liberty and to investigate any abuses which may have occurred. It is not known whether this Commission involves lay and/or local people. The Commission has to make itself visible and accessible to prisoners and has set out the measures that are to be taken in case of alleged ill-treatment.

This is equivalent in terms of having a local dimension but not so in terms of being paid appointees rather than volunteers.

SPAIN

The right to request or complain is expressly provided for under the list of prisoners' rights and duties. According to the Prison Regulations, a prisoner can bring a complaint to the prison administration, judicial or other public authority. The general procedure for lodging a complaint is to bring it before the prison director who has the duty of communicating or delivering the complaint to the public authority concerned.

Another channel for bringing a complaint is the Supervisory Judge. In practice, in order to deliver a complaint to the Supervisory Judge the prisoner usually has to deliver it to the prison administration. The main exception to this procedure relates to complaints made to the Ombudsman, which can be sent directly by the prisoner.

The fact that the majority of complaints of prisoners held in Spanish prisons have to go through the director can affect the effectiveness of the complaint mechanism. The rules related to complaints from prisoners do not provide for any time frame for a reply from the director, or as to when the director should forward the complaint to another body that can remedy the problem. As far as can be established the Spanish system has no direct equivalent to our VC.

This is not equivalent to VCs as it does not consist of volunteers and does not have a wider monitoring function but is restricted to being a complaints system.

CZECH REPUBLIC

Both the Imprisonment Act and the Regulation of Imprisonment provide directions on the possibility of prisoners bringing complaints to competent authorities and state bodies. However, these pieces of legislation lack anything on provisions establishing an internal mechanism of complaint. Irrespective of this gap, there is provision relating to submission of complaints to state authorities and international bodies. These provisions include the appointment of an employee specifically tasked to forward prisoner's complaints, the requirement of a speedy forwarding of the prisoner's complaint and request for interview the prisoner's entitlement to send correspondence to these bodies in sealed envelopes and the access to interpretation assistance if needed.

This is not equivalent to VCs as it does not consist of volunteers and does not have a wider monitoring function but is restricted to being a complaints system.

CROATIA

Prisoners in Croatia have different channels for bringing their complaints. Inmates can bring their grievances to the attention of the prison director (warden), executive judge or Central Office. The Law further provides a period limit of fifteen days for the prison director to provide an answer and thirty days for response to complaints made to the Central Office. Appeals can be pursued against decisions from the executive judge, affording a second level of appeal from the original decision of the prison director. There are two main safeguards supporting confidentiality and encouraging inmates to use the system to make complaints. Firstly, any written correspondence to the executive judge or the Central Office cannot be opened by the prison administration. Secondly, if an inmate is willing to make his/her complaint orally to the director of the prison, the presence of other employees is prohibited.

The executive judge can hold the hearing on an inmate's complaint in the prison premises. This procedure provides an opportunity to spread the awareness of the possibility of using this channel for complaints.

This is not equivalent to VCs as it does not consist of volunteers and does not have a wider monitoring function but is restricted to being a complaints system.

COMMON FUNCTIONS

The table following summarises the features applicable to the European Countries on which information has been obtained. The countries comprising the British Isles have not been included since all of them have the equivalent of a VC in terms of the criteria which were indicated at the outset of this paper.

From the table above it is clear that the right to complain is a statutory requirement whereas there is not a statutory requirement for a monitoring body equivalent to VCs with the nearest equivalent being a national paid body in Sweden. PVCs are required by law in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In Sweden regular inspections of prisons are carried out by the National Prison and Probation Administration and the Ombudsman. In Spain and Croatia the right to complain is statutory and this is also developing in the Czech Republic in recent years. In the Netherlands while the right to complain is statutory there is no legal obligation to undertake regular inspections of the prisons.

In Sweden and the Czech Republic, monitoring and the right to complain are undertaken at a national and local level. In all the other countries researched the right to complain is carried out at a local level. In England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands this is through each prison. In Spain the function of dealing with complaints is carried out by the prison director and in Croatia this is looked at by the prison director, executive judge or the central office.

In England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland PVCs are independent from the state. However in the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Croatia, Spain and Sweden the right to complain and the inspection of prisons is not carried out independently of the state.

In England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Sweden and Croatia a complaint is anonymous in the sense that every attempt is taken to make sure that a complaining prisoner will not be identified and reprimanded. In the Czech Republic anonymity is partially the case but is becoming more so. In the Netherlands and Spain the fact that the majority of complaints of prisoners have to go through the director as in Spain or complete a complaints slip as in the Netherlands, means prisoners may lack trust in the system.

Other than the British Isles, I have been unable to find direct comparators to our VCs in Europe. There are a number of differing systems monitoring prison conditions and/or dealing with complaints. Dependent on the view taken by the Review Group about the involvement of VCs in relation to complaints, the bodies who deal specifically with complaints will have a greater or lesser significance.

The most direct area for shared understanding exists within the British Isles and this adds significance to the forthcoming Tripartite talks between the UK prison monitoring bodies. It also raises the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in such conversations even if only at observer level.

SHIRLEY McCOARD
Reducing Reoffending Division

21 July 2005