Consultation on the Draft Public Services Reform (Prison Visiting Committees) (Scotland) Order 2014: Analysis of Written Responses

Section 3: Monitors

3.1 This section presents the findings relating to the proposed nature and roles of Monitors.

Summary of Section 3

Most of the comments about the proposed nature and roles of Monitors focused on raising issues or concerns and / or making suggestions, although a small number of respondents made specific comments in support of aspects of these proposals.

The most common issue or concern raised related to the inclusion of two types of Monitors with different roles, with one of the roles involving paid Monitors.

Comments on reporting and communication issues were also very common, such as the lack of inclusion in the draft Order of direct access to the Scottish Ministers or of a requirement for an annual report to be submitted and published. Comments on recruitment and appointment were also common (e.g. perceived difficulties in recruiting or retaining Monitors; and a lack of detail of the appointments process).

The perceived loss of independence of Monitors was a concern for many, particularly the proposal that Lay Monitors would report to, and take instruction from Prison Monitors.

Other themes on which issues or concerns were raised and suggestions made included: the number and composition of Monitors appointed; training and support; and frequency and regularity of monitoring visits (with a perceived lack of detail and specification of these issues).

A further common theme related to prisoner complaints, including: a perceived lack of clarity and definition of the role of Monitors; a concern that they would not be able to support prisoners with the prison complaints process; and potential for overlapping roles and processes in handling complaints.

Several respondents raised issues or concerns about Lay Monitors being able to be assigned to any or all prisons in Scotland (e.g. in terms of loss of local knowledge, and lack of representation of the local community).

A number of comments focused on a perceived general lack of detail in specifying the role of Monitors, and / or the omission of functions currently undertaken by VCs.

Overall pattern of views

3.2 The majority of respondents made particular comments on the proposals in relation to the nature and roles of the Monitors, some of which link closely to issues raised in the previous section.

3.3 In terms of the overall pattern of views about the proposed nature and roles of Monitors, most of the comments (as in the previous section) focused on raising issues or concerns and / or making suggestions. A small number of respondents also made specific comments in support of aspects of the nature and role of Monitors.

3.4 Comments were made on a range of aspects of the proposed nature and roles of Monitors, and these are presented in the remainder of this section.

Aspects of the proposed nature and roles of Monitors

3.5 The most common themes relating to the proposed nature and roles of Monitors were:

• The inclusion of two types of Monitor (with different roles, and the payment of Prison Monitors).
• Reporting and communication issues.
• Recruitment and appointment.
• Independence.
• The number and composition of Monitors appointed.

3.6 Other themes on which comments were made were:

• Training and support.
• The frequency of visits by Monitors.
• Prisoner complaints.
• The allocation of Monitors to prisons.
• The general functions and overall roles of Monitors.

3.7 Within these overall themes, comments were made on issues relating to Monitors overall, as well as issues relating specifically to Prison Monitors and issues relating specifically to Lay Monitors. These are considered by theme (with reference to a particular type of Monitor where appropriate) to avoid repetition.

Two types of Monitor

3.8 The inclusion of two types of Monitor (Prison Monitors and Lay Monitors) with different roles, and the proposed payment of Prison Monitors, was the most common theme in relation to Monitors.

3.9 One respondent stated specifically that they agreed in principle with the split between Prison and Lay Monitors, arguing that there needed to be some strategic and oversight function to the daily processes, and it was appropriate that resources be made available for this.

3.10 Most of the specific comments, however, focused on raising issues and / or concerns, or making suggestions.

Issues or concerns

3.11 Most respondents identified some issues or concerns with the proposal to have two types of Monitor. The most common related to their having two different roles, and the proposal for one of the roles to involve paid Monitors.

3.12 Among the comments made about the differences in the roles, some respondents expressed a general view that the separation would have a negative impact on the service. It was also suggested that this was part of a hierarchical structure (mentioned in Section 2) and would increase complexity and bureaucracy. One of the VCs expressed concern that Prison Monitors would be seen as the "professionals" and Lay Monitors as the "amateurs".

3.13 A few VC respondents and one of the local authority respondents stated that there was a lack of clarity about the relationship between Prison and Lay Monitors, and the specific roles of each. Several respondents argued that the different powers could lead to confusion among Monitors, within prisons, among prisoners and for SPS staff. It was also argued that having two "tiers" of Monitors could have an impact on prisoners' trust and confidence, as well as upon the willingness of people to volunteer to be Lay Monitors (discussed further in para 3.30). One respondent argued that Lay Monitors would do the bulk of the work. Reference was also made to Professor Coyle's suggestion that only a single tier of independent monitors would be required for each prison.

3.14 A further common issue with the proposal to have two types of Monitor related to the Prison Monitors being a paid role, and many respondents identified issues or concerns with this. These comments focused largely on a perceived lack of need for the Prison Monitors. It was argued, for example, that justification for them had not been established, or that respondents could not see the need for this. Several respondents stated that Professor Coyle had expressed the view that, if his recommendations were implemented, there would be no need for paid Monitors. Some also stated that the Justice Committee had questioned their need, and sought clarity of their role. One VC expressed the view that having paid Monitors may not be OPCAT compliant.

3.15 A few VCs also suggested that paid Monitors would be expensive and that there would be a lack of added value from them (linking to comments about costs and value for money made in Section 2). One individual respondent made reference to para 3.20 of the proposed Explanatory Document and questioned why, if the introduction of Prison Monitors would ensure a robust structure, a different model had been adopted for the Independent Visitors for Police Cells (where three area co-ordinators provide administrative, co-ordination and training support).

Suggestions

3.16 Several respondents made specific suggestions about addressing these issues or concerns. These included:

• Clear specification, clarification and more detail of the roles and responsibilities of Monitors (Prison and Lay), including the view that the mandate and powers of HMCIPS and the Monitors should be comprehensively set out in a legislative framework.
• Reconsideration of the proposed hierarchy and different powers, and combination of the two roles.
• Making the general duties outlined in section 7B of the Order similar to those in section 7A.
• Clarity of why there was a difference in the powers of the Monitors to hear complaints from prisoners.
• All independent monitoring tasks being undertaken by lay members.

3.17 As noted in the previous section, suggestions were also made about other options for the use of the relevant resources.

Reporting and communication issues

3.18 Comments on reporting and communication issues were also very common in relation to the roles of Monitors.

3.19 One local authority respondent stated that they welcomed the introduction of annual reporting of the outputs of Prison Monitors. Another respondent expressed agreement that Prison Monitors should submit their reports to HMCIPS.

3.20 A large number of respondents focused on raising issues or concerns, and / or making suggestions.

Issues or concerns

3.21 The two most common issues or concerns raised relating to reporting and communication were: the lack of inclusion in the draft Order of direct access to the Scottish Ministers; and the lack of inclusion of a requirement for an annual report to be submitted to Scottish Ministers and published.

3.22 The lack of direct access to Scottish Ministers for Monitors links to points made earlier about the structure, and a concern about hierarchical reporting from Lay Monitors to Prison Monitors to HMCIPS. Some respondents noted that Visiting Committee members currently should bring any matters of concern to the attention of the prison Governor, and, if they did not believe the Governor had remedied the matter within a reasonable period, they could notify Scottish Ministers. It was suggested that the proposed changes may remove this route. It was stated that there was no provision for Prison Monitors to report concerns to Scottish Ministers if they remained unsatisfied with the outcome further to it having been reported to HMCIPS, and that there was no role for Lay Monitors in this.

3.23 Additional concerns included that this may: compromise the system; take away a "safeguard"; undermine independence; make the lines of communication less clear; stop the immediacy of some reports / comments or resolution; and make it possible for reports to be filtered or amended.

3.24 Several respondents also expressed concerns about the lack of inclusion of a requirement for the Monitors to submit an annual report on monitoring to Scottish Ministers and publish the results. Issues raised included views that this would: remove a safeguarding requirement under the existing legislation; and reduce effectiveness and public accountability.

3.25 A few respondents stated that there had been a previous Scottish Government commitment to the inclusion of these issues, but they had been omitted.

3.26 One local authority respondent raised a concern that no provision was made in the draft Oder for Monitors to meet on a regular basis to hear reports by the prison Governor and to discuss relevant issues relating to monitoring. A few VCs also stated that the draft Order did not provide for the setting up of a committee for each establishment, nor require it to meet a prescribed number of times each year.

3.27 Several respondents raised concerns that there was no mention of a requirement for Lay Monitors to produce a written report and inform the prisoners of their findings. This is discussed later in this section in relation to the role of Monitors in prisoner complaints.

Suggestions

3.28 Several respondents made suggestions in relation to these issues. These included:

• Incorporation in the Order of Recommendation 6 from the Coyle report (relating to Monitors bringing matters of concern to the attention of the Governor, then to the attention of Scottish Ministers).
• Provision in the legislation of direct access for Monitors to Scottish Ministers (including, in the view of some, to include Lay Monitors specifically).
• Specific provision in the legislation of a requirement to prepare an annual report to Scottish Ministers of the year's business and to publish these reports.
• Specific provision in the legislation of a requirement for a summary of progress across all prisons.
• Incorporation in the Order of Recommendation 13 of the Coyle report (that Monitors for each prison should elect a Chairperson and meet as a group in the prison at least every two months).
• Clear specification of the number of meetings to be held annually within the prison and specification of the presence of the Governor at these meetings to speak to his / her report.
• Clear specification of a requirement for Lay Monitors to submit a written report on each visit with a copy to the Governor for response, the final report being held in a location available to other Lay Monitors and prison staff.
• Specific provision in the legislation of a requirement for Monitors to advise a prisoner of their findings in relation to complaints.
• Retention of the provision that Lay Monitors should have a clear responsibility for maintaining good relationships with the prison Governor, staff and prisoners.

Recruitment and appointment

3.29 Comments on recruitment and appointment of Monitors were also very common and focused on the identification of issues or concerns, and / or suggestions.

Issues or concerns

3.30 A large number of respondents raised issues or concerns about recruitment and appointment. Among these, a common theme was the potential difficulty in recruiting suitable Monitors (particularly Lay Monitors) and the potential loss of existing volunteers (with a number of comments on the current quality and diversity of this group). A number of respondents suggested that issues such as: the role of the Lay Monitors in relation to Prison Monitors; the proposed hierarchical structure; the "lower status" or subordinate role for Lay Monitors; or general changes to the provisions may be a disincentive, and make recruitment more difficult.

3.31 Comments were also made about the appointments process, and it was argued, for example, that the current proposals lacked detail about the appointments process and the requirements for Prison Monitors and Lay Monitors. Two VCs suggested that there appeared to be a reluctance to commit to an open and transparent process for Prison Monitors. One HRO raised concerns about a lack of information about a number of related issues, including the recruitment, selection and monitoring of the Monitors. Two VCs suggested a lack of reference to issues such as: the term of appointment; the eligibility criteria; or the circumstances in which a Monitor might be asked to resign. A further VC stated that the proposed conditions of appointment appeared to be more about administrative convenience than operative excellence.

3.32 One IMCO expressed concern at an appointment being made by a Government official or appointee.

Suggestions

3.33 Several respondents made specific suggestions relating to recruitment and appointment, and these included:

• Provision of more information about recruitment and appointments (including confirmation that the local authority will have no role).
• Clarification of the qualifications, skills and competences expected of Monitors and specification by Regulation of the qualifications for Prison Monitors.
• Written commitments in the legislation to open and transparent, community-based recruitment.
• Specification in the Order or Prison Rules of issues such as: the appointments process (and detailed aspects of this); the term of appointment; the eligibility criteria; re-appointment; and the circumstances in which a Monitor might be asked to resign.
• Incorporation in the Order of Recommendation 7 of the Coyle report, that monitors should be appointed under an open public appointments system for specified periods.
• Provision of assurance that previous criminal records should not decrease an individual's chance of formally engaging within the process, with the development of relevant safeguards (with which one respondent offered assistance).

Independence

3.34 The issue of the independence of Monitors was also a key area of concern, and is linked to issues raised previously in Section 2 and at other points in the report. Many respondents identified such issues or concerns in relation to the nature and roles of the Monitors, and some suggestions were highlighted.

Issues or concerns

3.35 As noted, general concerns about independence in the proposed structure were discussed in Section 2. The issue raised most frequently in relation to the nature and roles of Monitors related to the proposal that Lay Monitors would report to, and take instruction from Prison Monitors. This was raised particularly (although not only) by VCs. It was argued, for example, that it would compromise the independence of both types of Monitor, and the monitoring process.

3.36 For example, it was suggested that Prison Monitors, as paid Monitors, would be viewed as civil servants, with their independence compromised by the requirement to take instructions from HMCIPS and / or by their payment.

3.37 It was further argued that the independence of the Lay Monitors would be compromised by their need to assist and comply with instructions of Prison Monitors. One VC respondent suggested that this may not be OPCAT compliant. A few VCs also stated that the setting of priorities by the Prison Monitors and HMCIPS would undermine Lay Monitors' independence.

3.38 It was also suggested (as noted in Section 2) that a perceived lack of independence and the use of paid Prison Monitors may undermine prisoner (and potentially staff and public) confidence in the Monitors, and in the system as a whole.

Suggestions

3.39 Suggestions relating to the structure overall were noted in Section 2 and at other points in this section.

3.40 One VC made the specific additional suggestion that there should be clarification of whether the Lay Monitors would have any input to the process of setting priorities, arguing that their experience would be invaluable and their involvement would provide them with a clear understanding of expectations.

3.41 A further additional suggestion was that there should be a written commitment in the legislation to adequately trained and supported self-managing teams of Lay Monitors.

Number and composition of Monitors appointed

3.42 Many respondents made comments about the number and composition of Monitors appointed.

3.43 One respondent stated that they considered the powers proposed in Section 7A (2) (whereby the Chief Inspector must ensure that at least three Prison Monitors are appointed at any given time) to be appropriate, given the geography and population distribution of Scotland.

3.44 As with other issues, however, most of the comments focused on raising issues or concerns, and / or making suggestions.

Issues or concerns

3.45 Several respondents raised issues or concerns relating to the number and composition of Monitors appointed. For example, a few stated that there was a lack of detail of these issues in the new system, with no specification of the number of Monitors required and no minimum number of Lay Monitors.

3.46 One HRO identified a range of detailed information about the composition of Monitors (e.g. in terms of expertise; gender balance; ethnic minority representation; and principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights) which were seen not to be explicit in the draft Order.

3.47 One criminal justice organisation expressed concerns in relation to Prison Monitors that a minimum of three, with a requirement to visit each prison in their area at least once a month, might not be sufficient.

Suggestions

3.48 Many respondents made specific suggestions about these issues. These included:

• Recruitment of sufficient monitors and clarification of the requirements.
• Ensuring the legislation establishing the new structure encompasses the key elements set out by OPCAT (including that the number of independent monitors should be sufficient to carry out their duties according to the Prisons [Scotland] Act 1989 and the Prison Rules).
• Specification of the number of Monitors to be appointed to individual prisons (including the number of Lay Monitors for each prison).
• Recruitment of people from a variety of backgrounds, with a range of skills and experience (including, in the view of one local authority, the inclusion of a serving local councillor).

Training and support

3.49 Comments on training and support were also common, and these included some issues or concerns, but focused particularly on the identification of suggestions.

Issues or concerns

3.50 A few respondents highlighted issues or concerns with training and support to Monitors. These tended to focus on a perceived lack of information about the training and administrative support to be provided to them. One VC stated that they had expected a commitment to nationally provided and supported training, mentoring and evaluation, but that these were not contained in the current draft Order nor the supporting documentation. Some suggested that the provision of additional training and administrative support would be welcome. A few VCs stated that the model in the draft Order seemed to focus entirely on oversight and control.

3.51 One of the VCs stated that there was no mention of holding regular Monitor meetings (an issue raised above) and argued that these were essential for information and training. One VC raised a question about who would organise and pay for the training for HMCIPS and the Monitors.

Suggestions

3.52 As noted, issues relating to the provision of training and support were raised in Section 2 in relation to the use of resources. A large number of respondents made additional specific suggestions about training and support, which included:

• Provision of more information and clarity in the Order about training, support and guidance to Monitors.
• Provision of additional resources to develop training and support.
• The use of paid employees to support Monitors (e.g. with training and administrative tasks), with one criminal justice organisation, for example, suggesting dealing with Recommendation 14 of the Coyle report in the Order.
• General provision of administrative support.
• Standardisation of training for Lay Monitors and development of high quality provision.
• Arrangements for introductory and ongoing training (currently provided by the AVC).
• Inclusion of the requirement for appropriate training for Monitors within the responsibilities of HMCIPS.
• Further detail in the draft Order of the level of support to be provided by HMCIPS.
• Support to Lay Monitors to enable them to be flexible in their approach and raise issues they consider pertinent and important.

Frequency of visits

3.53 A further common theme on which comments were made related to the frequency of visits by Monitors.

Issues or concerns

3.54 Several respondents identified issues or concerns relating to the frequency of visits, including the lack of specification of the frequency and regularity of monitoring requirements. It was argued, for example, that there was a lack of specific detail other than to state that Prison Monitors must visit at least once a month, with no specification of the frequency for Lay Monitors.

3.55 Additionally, one local authority respondent expressed the view that a minimum visit of once a month by Prison Monitors appeared to be "light touch".

Suggestions

3.56 A few respondents made specific suggestions, which included:

• Provision for continuation of visits by Monitors on a regular, unannounced basis.
• Specification in the legislation of the minimum number and frequency of visits by Lay Monitors.
• Ensuring the legislation establishing the new structure encompasses the key elements set out by OPCAT (which had a key objective to establish a system of regular visits by independent bodies).

Prisoner complaints

3.57 Many respondents made comments on the role of Monitors in relation to prisoner complaints. A few welcomed the continued involvement of Lay Monitors in hearing complaints. One stated generally that Sections 7A and 7B gave roles for Monitors in the investigation of prisoners' complaints, and this was both welcome and necessary.

3.58 One IMCO expressed support for Lay Monitors having a role in the complaints system if properly defined and aligned to wider complaints handling and scrutiny. The respondent provided details of the ways in which they believed this could be beneficial. A local authority respondent stated that they agreed that independent monitors should complement the existing prison complaints process.

3.59 Most of the comments about complaints, however, as with other themes, related to the identification of issue or concerns, and / or suggestions.

Issues or concerns

3.60 Several respondents highlighted issues or concerns with prisoner complaints. These included a perceived lack of clarity and definition of the role of Monitors in the complaints process. For example, one local authority respondent stated that there was insufficient detail in the draft Order about how, in practice, the independent Monitors would complement the prison complaints process. Another respondent expressed concern about whether the role of Lay Monitors in the complaints system, in the Order as currently drafted, was properly defined and aligned to wider complaints handling and scrutiny. They suggested that the proposed role was not significantly different from the role of the VCs on complaints, and would not therefore address key concerns around lack of consistency and variation in approach highlighted in the Coyle report.

3.61 A few respondents expressed concern that Lay Monitors would not be able to support prisoners with the prison complaints process (which, it was stated, entitled a prisoner to be supported at an Internal Complaints Committee and included the right to take a complaint forward to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman [SPSO]). It was also argued that the draft Order did not include a role for the Monitors (of either type) in assisting prisoners to prepare and make complaints. One local authority respondent stated that many prisoners would have literacy difficulties, leading to difficulties in representing their cases. One respondent stated that prisoners' protection would be curtailed by this, and that there would be uncertainty for both prisoners and Monitors.

3.62 A criminal justice organisation also raised a concern that the removal of Monitors from being able to represent prisoners at Internal Complaints Committee hearings could lead to a duplication of effort where a prisoner did not receive a satisfactory outcome, as their next approach would be to the independent Monitors.

3.63 One of the IMCOs made very detailed comments about complaints handling. They expressed a concern about the alignment and integration of the Lay Monitor complaints role with the existing complaints process (including the roles of both the SPS and SPSO) and the potential to undermine the approach, and create parallel systems for raising and responding to complaints. It was suggested that this would add complexity to the process for prisoners and cause confusion. The respondent argued that it was unclear, for example, what would happen if the complainant wanted to access both the Lay Monitor and the SPS internal complaints process (suggesting that, as drafted, both the SPS and the Lay Monitor would be required to investigate, respond and report separately) with potential for confusion and / or conflicting responses.

3.64 The same respondent argued that the proposed requirement to report the outcome of each investigation would create potential for overlap with the SPS and SPSO statutory processes. They also stated that this could be a significant burden on Lay Monitors and increase expectations of what they could do for individuals. It was stated further that the status of reports and recommendations and how these should be followed up was also unclear.

3.65 As noted previously (in relation to reporting and communication), several respondents raised concerns that there was no mention of a requirement for Lay Monitors to produce a written report and to inform the prisoners of their findings. It was suggested, for example, that this would make the process for complaints "less vigorous" and robust.

3.66 A further concern related to the absence of a duty of the Governor to provide a confidential setting for Monitors to hear complaints (discussed in Section 4).

3.67 A few respondents raised concerns about comments made by another respondent, suggesting that these were based on a misunderstanding of the independent status of monitoring and the way in which the wider requests system operated.

Suggestions

3.68 Specific suggestions in relation to the role of Monitors in prisoner complaints included:

• Provision of additional detail in the Order regarding the complaints process (with some suggestions of specific issues for which details should be given).
• Further consideration of the role for Lay Monitors in complaints handling and how this relates to the existing statutory roles of the SPS and SPSO.
• Clarification of roles in complaints handling, to ensure that they are defined well and work together (with the role of Monitors complementing other aspects of complaints processes, and, in the view of one respondent, a need to ensure that the existing process for handling complaints, particularly that of the SPS, remains the principal avenue through which prisoners can raised complaints).
• Continuation of a role for Lay Monitors in dealing with prisoner concerns and complaints and provision of detail of the role (with suggestions made about the nature of this).
• Definition of "complaints".
• Continuation of a role for Monitors to support prisoners with the formal SPS complaints procedure, including representing prisoners at Internal Complaints Committee hearings and representations to the SPSO.
• Clarity of the status of reports and recommendations (including follow up and requirements to publish).
• Retention of a requirement for Lay Monitors to report verbally to the prisoner or member of staff who raised an issue, prior to submitting a written report to the Governor.
• Provision in the legislation of a requirement for Monitors to advise the prisoner of their findings in relation to complaints.
• Clear requirements for the recording and reporting of complaints statistics and performance information.

3.69 While some of the comments and suggestions focused on Lay Monitors, one respondent stated that, whilst not the main purpose of Prison Monitors, they should not specifically be excluded from investigating any complaint which a prisoner made to them.

Allocation of Monitors to prisons

3.70 Several respondents made comments on the allocation of Monitors to prisons, with most raising issues or concerns, and / or making suggestions. One respondent, however, stated that they considered the powers proposed in Section 7A (3) (relating to Prison Monitors being assigned to prisons: within a particular area of Scotland; particular prisons within Scotland; or all prisons in Scotland by the Chief Inspector) to be appropriate, given the geography and population distribution of Scotland.

Issues or concerns

3.71 In terms of issues or concerns, the most common was the potential loss of local knowledge, and lack of representation of the local community, with Lay Monitors able to be assigned to any or all prisons in Scotland. Comments included the perceived value of building up particular knowledge of an establishment over a period of time, as well as the perceived benefits of involvement of members of the local community in which the prison is situated. One local authority respondent stated that, as prisons become more "community-facing", the local connection would be even more important to aid engagement, ensuring that Lay Members had an awareness of issues within areas and local services that could assist prisoners.

3.72 A small number of additional issues or concerns were identified. For example, one respondent argued that there would be no provision for a committee for each prison. Another stated that a basic principle of quality monitoring was the need for in-depth knowledge of, and regular commitment to a particular establishment. A further respondent questioned whether it would be necessary or feasible to appoint a Lay Monitor (on the basis of being a volunteer and receiving only expenses) to cover all areas.

Suggestions

3.73 Specific suggestions included:

• The removal of Section 7B (2)(c) (making reference to Lay Monitors being assigned to all prisons in Scotland.
• Clear commitment in the legislation to Lay Monitors working together in a specific prison.
• Ensuring that Lay Monitors are linked to local communities.
• Ensuring a consistent body of Lay Monitors from the area local to a prison (although one respondent stated that some could be appointed outwith their local catchment area).

General functions and overall role

3.74 A number of respondents made comments on the general functions and overall role of Monitors. These focused on issues or concerns, and / or suggestions, some of which overlapped with issues raised in Section 2.

Issues or concerns

3.75 Some comments focused on a perceived overall lack of detail in specifying the role of Monitors, and / or the general omission of functions currently undertaken by VCs. It was argued, for example, that under the current legislation (Prison Rules 2011) most of the requirements for independent monitoring by VCs were specified in the legislation. A few respondents also made reference to the provision of additional information in the "Guide for Visiting Committees" issued by the SPS. It was stated that the draft Order proposed instead that guidelines would be produced by the incumbent HMCIPS. One VC argued that this represented a serious reduction of the rights of prisoners to services and information, as well as failing to ensure that the roles and responsibilities were "future-proofed".

3.76 Some VCs gave detailed examples of information currently specified, but omitted from the proposals, and one individual respondent made reference to the provisions recorded in para 1-9 of the proposed Explanatory Document. One VC respondent provided a table containing a comparison of the existing duties of Lay Monitors in the Prison Rules 2011 and the contents of the draft Order (highlighting whether specific issues were contained within each).

3.77 Several respondents identified a perceived lack of clarity in relation to the detailed role of the Lay Monitors (for example noting that the draft Order referred to them "assisting" Prison Monitors and complying with any instructions issued by the Prison Monitor). Two VCs stated that they felt that the duties of the Lay Monitor would be entirely at the discretion of the Prison Monitor.

3.78 Specific additional concerns relating to the overall role of Monitors included a perceived lack of distinction between inspection and monitoring (raised previously, but also raised specifically relating to the roles of Monitors). A few respondents for example, highlighted reference to Prison Monitors having to maintain records about matters "inspected". One individual respondent highlighted a reference to "inspection and monitoring" standards, and a few respondents raised a concern about monitoring becoming ongoing inspection, or Lay Monitors being used to collect statistics for inspection.

3.79 A few VCs expressed disappointment that there appeared to be no intention to include the new Monitors in membership of the UK National Preventive Mechanism (NPM). They also argued that the new Monitors may still be excluded through being regarded as an extension of HMCIPS (which is already a member).

Suggestions

3.80 Some suggestions relating to these issues have been noted previously. Additional suggestions included:

• Retention of the obligation in current legislation and the Prison Rules for VCs and prison staff to afford prisoners a number of rights.
• Addition to the Order of the existing functions of VCs which have been omitted, with clear written commitments within the legislation.
• Clarity of the roles and responsibilities of Lay Monitors (with specific suggestions for inclusion in the role).
• Addition to the new legislation that Lay Monitors should be able to deal with issues relating to prisoner transport, health and community and voluntary support, all of which are provided by outside agencies.
• Revisiting the terminology of the draft Order in relation to the role of Prison Monitors and Lay Monitors to ensure a clear distinction between inspection and monitoring.
• Provision of clearer governance arrangements to ensure that the functions of inspection and monitoring remain distinct and operate separately.

Other issues

3.81 A very small number of additional issues or concerns were raised, and / or suggestions made.

3.82 One IMCO suggested naming the paid monitors "Prison Monitor Co-ordinators" and the Lay Monitors "Independent Prison Monitors".

3.83 One local authority respondent argued that the financial assumptions underpinning the proposals were unclear, including the level of payment being proposed for Prison Monitors.

3.84 One HRO stated that the proposed Order referred only to travel and subsistence expenses for Lay Monitors. They argued that it was important that they received reimbursement for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties such as loss of earnings, accommodation and childcare.