REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Published date | 01 March 1980 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1980.tb01589.x |
| Date | 01 March 1980 |
| Author | Steve Uglow. |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
THE
UNITED
KINGDOM
PRISON
SERVICES
THE
committee under
Mr.
Justice May to report
on
the state of the
prison services in this country was appointed by Merlyn Rees in
the context of increasing militancy within the prisons, both by the
prison officers and by the prisoners. Industrial action by members
of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) had disrupted the rkgimes
in prison and the work
of
the courts to
a
greater extent than ever
before. At the same time prisoners were staging demonstrations
against the conditions in which they were held.
The May
Report
deals very thoroughly with the grievances voiced
by the POA-problems of pay and working conditions are discussed
in detail. Much less attention has been given to the equally serious
problems faced by the prisoners themselves. The report gives one
the curious sensation that prisoners are only marginally people
whose needs and aspirations have to be taken into account. They are
treated in the main as incidental to such issues as the pay, conditions
and morale of prison officers and governors. The issues raised by
the disturbances in the prisons and referred to as the
I‘
crisis in the
prisons
”
are scarcely mentioned. Any problems are treated as
ones of industrial relations with the immediate task for the com-
mittee being that of placating the POA. The politics and policies of
this
organisation
come
under the committee’s critical scrutiny.
Particular disapproval is reserved
(I
0.10)
for the national executive’s
decision to allow branches the right to take local industrial action
on local issues. But overall little attention has been given to the
control of the power exercised
by
the prison officers within and over
the system. The impact on prisons of individual and organised
attitudes and practices of officers has been ignored.8 This seems
strange in the light of the increasingly political stance of the POA’s
attempts to influence public opinion on law and order.
Half of this report is spent in discussing numerous aspects of the
officer’s job, the rest being mainly devoted to the history and
organisation of the prison services. There are no discussions of the
problems of ~iolence,~ race, long
sentence^,^
increase in the numbers
1
Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom Prison Services
(HMSO)
Cmnd.
7673.
Chapter and paragraph refcrenccs are to this document.
*
M.
Fitzgerald and
J.
Sim:
British
Prisons
(1979)
Chap.
1.
8
Among other matters, prison officors have supported the segregation
“
control
units
”
at Wakefleld and the
‘.
cages
”
in
Porterfleld, Inverncss. They have opposed,
e.g.
the progressive r6gime for long terms at Barlinnie.
4
This is a critical issue in
the
light of recent prosecutions
of
prison officers from
Winson Green and
Hull.
6
This is discussed as a problem of prison population
(3.8).
The problems
of
policy
and principle receive
no
attention
nor
is
any
of
the research on
the
topic mentioned,
e.g.
the discussion document by the Council
of
Europe
“The
Treatment of
Long-Term
Prisoners
”
(Strasbourg
1977).
183
184
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
[Vol.
43
of young prisoners, or the use of drugs. Tn the light of this, whatever
settlement is reached with the
POA,
the problems facing the prison
services will continue.
Through the
1970s,
Parkhurst, Gartree, Hull, Peterhead, Worm-
word Scrubs
O
among others have all been the sites of well-publicised
demonstrations. They have not been demonstrations merely about
poor local conditions but have often underlined serious structural
problems which beset the prisons. To complain of overcrowding and
to
say that too many people are sent to prison is to raise not merely
a
matter of numbers, but to question fundamental public attitudes
on issues such as the role of the prison, the function
of
crime and
the nature of social authority. Equally to complain about the misuse
of drugs, control units or long sentences is not just to discuss a
problem of prison management but of basic human rights and also
of
conceptual issues as to the function
of
a prison itself. Somehow
the voice of the prisoners is not considered worthy of mention in
the committee’s report. The committee visited
38
United Kingdom
prisons. Yet there
is
no indication in the Introduction to the Report
or in the list’ of those giving oral evidence that the committee
sought the views of inmates themselves. Obviously there are prob-
lems of reliability, but being
a
convict need not necessarily invalidate
a
person’s powers of observation, reasoning and judgment.
I
will concentrate on the committee’s analysis of the prison
population and its recommendations for reducing it within its overall
plan for the allocation of resources within the prison sector. The
committee’s recommendations for changes in penal objectives and
prison dgimes are then considered with briefer examinations
of
the problems of public accountability within the prison service and
of the role of the prison officer. The substantial parts of the report
which deal with the organisation of the Prison Service and make
recommendations relating to pay and conditions of the prison officer
will not be discussed in detail.
The
prison population
The report opens with a detailed look at the numbers problem
within British prisons, the “crisis” that has been
so
widely can-
vassed both in academic and media circles. The immediate effects
have been overcrowding and control problems. The increase is
largely the product of an increasing number of offences being
prosecuted but
is
also caused by the increase in the average length
of
sentence by some
60
per
cent. in the last
30
years
(3.8).
The
committee supports the conclusions of the report of the Advisory
Council
on
the Penal System on
“A
Review of Maximum
Penalties
”
(3.63).
This suggested that a large number of the short
6
Among accounts
of
these are:
B.
Stratton,
Who
Guards
rhe
Guards?
(1973);
Inside Story,
JanJFeb.
1973;
The
Abolltionirr
(No.
4).
pp.
14-19.
A recent demon-
stration
at
Camp
Hill
is
described in
The
Guardian,
December
7,
1979.
7
Appendix
2.
To continue reading
Request your trial