Ombudsman - Peacekeeping over Responsibility?

Ombudsman - Peacekeeping over Responsibility?

By: Ben Gunn - HMP Shepton Mallet

Most of us won't remember the glory days of 1990, filled with smoke, fear, and a tinge of hope for change. The worst riots in our penal history led to the Woolf Report, one of the most sensible and far-reaching inquiries ever conducted into the prison system. Woolf identified prisoners’ perceptions of justice (and injustice) as being crucial to keeping order and control.

One of the few of Woolf’s recommendations that were finally adopted was the creation of an independent Prisons Ombudsman. By having an independent element to the complaints process, it was hoped that the process would have legitimacy; that is, we'd have a bit of faith when we shoved a complaint in that it wouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Of course, life just isn't that simple, especially in prison. We are a cynical bunch, made so by the feeble responses we receive when we raise legitimate beefs. The first Ombudsman must have understood this, because he handled complaints in a way that the present bloke wouldn't recognise. There was an investigation, which led to a formal Report. That Report wasn't shy in flinging the crap in the appropriate direction; it said what was right, what was wrong, who messed up, and what was being asked of Prison Service Headquarters to put it right. Simple as that.

But things are not as simple anymore. As the number of complaints has risen, the amount of attention each gets has dropped. No longer is there a formal investigation and report. Investigators seem to be more concerned with working out a solution rather than apportioning blame. This has led to three problems, and together they threaten to undermine the Ombudsman and the legitimacy of the complaints process.

The first problem is the quality of the decisions being made. Over the last two years I have seen some truly bizarre decisions signed off by Stephen Shaw. Some have been my own complaints, mostly other peoples. But weird is weird.

One of the latest was in the Ombudsman’s quarterly bulletin. Some con was shipped and staff cleared his cell. The man put in a claim for stuff which was on his prop card, but which didn't arrive after him. Normally this might be solved by looking at the cell clearance paperwork, where two staff bag and tag everything and list the goodies. But this time they didn't bother. The Ombudsman refused to uphold the complaint because the man couldn't prove the items actually were in his cell when it was cleared.

So that's an open invitation to thieves with keys. How the hell is it ever possible for any con to prove what was in his cell at any particular moment? Especially when he's halfway down the M4 and his prop is 100 miles away. It’s just not possible. Nice one, that decision gives staff absolution for every shoddy cell clearance in future.

My own complaint about Compliance drug testing was also given the bums rush. Either it is Mandatory or Voluntary. Both of those are based in some lawful authority and have safeguards built into the process. But damned if I can find any authority for Compliance testing, and there are no safeguards in the process. Not one. But that's okay with the Ombudsman, although the letter explaining such was one of the most convoluted, incomprehensible pieces of work I have ever sweated over. And I read medieval constitutional law for relaxation.

It's simple to keep rehashing these examples, but I have to do just one more. A mate put up a notice about race relations which comprised a quote from the last Director General. He was ordered to take it down, and it wound its way to the Ombudsman - who took the prisons view. Alas, he also failed to consider Article 10 of the Human Rights Act - freedom of expression. In due course, the Prisoners Advice Service got involved, and finally the Ombudsman got around to doing a proper job and upheld the complaint.

This quality of decision-making is lamentable; it just isn't good enough. Individually, they smack of laziness. Collectively, they give the impression that the Ombudsman (in the job since 1999) has relaxed into a comfortable relationship with the Prison Service. Of course, he has to maintain a working relationship but there comes a point where you have to guard against giving the benefit of the doubt to staff too often. You shouldn't be afraid to point the finger of blame.

The second problem is the idea of ‘local resolution’. Not a bad idea on paper, but in practice a way of upholding a complaint and still leaving the con feeling aggrieved. By the time a complaint has reached the Ombudsman, the prison has had three chances to get it right. It should be the job of the Ombudsman to adjudicate on the complaint, to decide who was right and who was wrong. It really isn't complicated.

Instead, the Ombudsman tries to resolve the problem. Not bad in itself, but first it would be helpful to decide who is responsible for the screw up. If you want to put it right after that, go ahead. An illustration of this is a recent case where a lifer had his file mixed up with another lifers. As a result, he was stuck with a new set of risk factors just before a parole hearing. This is a very, very big deal, where years of liberty are at stake. The Ombudsman appears to be happy with an apology being given at local level. What should be happening is the identification of the idiot who made this shocking error, and make him give the apology - and recommend disciplinary proceedings.

This local resolution smacks of slipperyness, of a way of avoiding apportioning blame and responsibility for wrongdoing. It's a state of affairs that we aren't allowed to get away with, so why should staff? And why is the Ombudsman so easily persuaded that a few platitudes cover the grounds of the grievance? No; there should be a formal investigation (very rare under Stephen Shaw compared to his predecessor) and blame apportioned. Without doing that, it looks as if staff wrongdoing is being ignored and our faith in the whole process is undermined. The Ombudsman’s job is to deal with complaints, not to fart around trying some watered ¬down version of mediation. As I said, the prison has already had three chances before it gets to the Ombudsman; why should they get another free pass? Why aren't staff being held accountable?

The third problem is the cosy deal that the Prisons Ombudsman has struck with the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Administration. The latter has fearsome powers, including the ability to award compensation for maladministration. He is perfectly entitled to deal with our complaints, but now won't do so. He has been persuaded to leave all prison-related stuff to the Prisons Ombudsman - who has no statutory powers, and must go pleading to the Director General if he wants anything done (which may explain the local resolution crap). God forbid we get compensation, no matter how shocking the maladministration by staff.

We need to have confidence in the complaints system if we are to be persuaded that we are being treated justly. It’s not a mediation system, it’s a complaints system, and to morph it out of recognition in the name of local resolution is to treat the whole basis of the complaints system with a carelessness that can only come from working too closely with the Prison Service for too long.

We are in a perpetual state of powerlessness, with the whole weight of the State pressing on our throats. What seems incredibly minor to outsiders is, for us, a huge signifier of the way in which we are disregarded as human beings every day. To be treated badly, incompetently or just plain maliciously stokes the fires of resentment and anger. To have our complaints treated with less than the utmost care only adds to the grievance. That is why the Ombudsman should hold his office with great consideration and understanding, attempting to break away from the plush offices and casting his mind’s eye to the solitary prisoner in his cell who is reaching out for some portion of fairness and justice. Right now, he may well be disappointed.