THINGS MUST CHANGE

I was informed that there had been a serious assault on staff within the Separation Centre at HMP Frankland. Details at that time were still to emerge, but what I did know was that an air ambulance was transporting one seriously injured member of staff to hospital while two others were en route in ambulances.

That sickly feeling in the pit of your stomach quickly appeared and I waited for an update, praying that my colleagues would pull through.

When I learned of the details of the attack I felt a mixture of anger, frustration, disgust and concern. My main emotion was concern, not only for my injured colleagues, but also for the staff on duty who had witnessed and responded to the attack. Without divulging details that have not already been publicised, an attack by a terrorist prisoner in a Separation Centre has to be the biggest fear any member of staff could face. We are all aware of ideologies that dictate that any of us not subscribing to the thought process of extremists is a legitimate target in their eyes.

Building positive relationships with prisoners and treating them with dignity and respect are aspects of our job that we all strive to achieve, and with the majority of prisoners – who simply wish to get on with their sentence then return to their families – we are very successful. They either wish to change or they return to a criminal life. All we can do is give them options. That is fine.

But academics, reform groups, inspectors, politicians and, more importantly, psychologists have to accept that there is a small portion of the prison population – that poses such a threat not only to prison staff, but also to national security – that will never change. They have no desire to change, and their sole ambition is to target figures of authority because of the war that rages in their sick, ideological minds.

Prisoners in a Separation Centre are there for good reason. They are so influential, dangerous, manipulative and high-profile that they must be kept separate from the general prison population. These are people who have committed atrocities, attempted to commit atrocities, or continually support the terrorist ideology and influence attacks. Separation means what it says on the tin. So why treat them exactly the same as other prisoners?

If a prisoner is segregated, they receive their basic entitlements, are closely supervised, and have no access to a regime in line with others on normal location, and rightly so. The ‘seg’ is seen as a consequence of poor behaviour or a breach of prison rules – unless, of course, they are ‘bed blockers’ and seek their own protection.

A Separation Centre houses the most dangerous prisoners the system holds. The threat is such that they live separately from the general population. They are sometimes a national security threat, have committed the most heinous atrocities, have an ideology that cannot be altered, and are fixated on committing further terrorist attacks. This level of threat needs to be controlled and contained, not rewarded and appeased. Things MUST change.

It is now time for the independent review of Separation Centres to conclude and recommend that they are selfcontained units specifically for controlling the most dangerous extremists in the system – and that is all they need to do. People will undoubtedly disagree with me, but we definitely need a ‘supermax’ facility that replicates the American model. If the Texan prisons are good enough to replicate when it comes to sentence reform and rehabilitation, why would you overlook similar American prisons that hold dangerous criminals in supermax facilities?

The human rights excuse is exactly that – a convenient excuse not to address the threat and protect staff. If we need a change to legislation so terrorists are held in supermax conditions and their human rights cannot be challenged, then that is what the Government must do. We cannot continue the way we are.

I am calling, as a priority, for all staff working within the entire high-security estate and all segregation units in every prison to be issued with stab-proof vests immediately. This should not even be a debate.

HMPPS can review the remaining estate to ascertain which sites need the same, but, for now, we need those protections in place in these high-risk areas. The employer loves to view statistics and evidence before any big decisions are made. In this instance, we do not have the luxury of time. It needs to happen immediately and this attack alone gives them enough evidence to legitimise that demand.

Some establishments may not need this protective equipment – and I do reiterate may –because some will need it. I will let the membership guide me on that issue.

I would also like to see the tactical use of tasers. Ideally, local response teams, who are specially trained, could be placed on permanent standby so that, when they attend an alarm bell, at least one of them has the option to deploy a taser. This makes sense and, no matter what your thoughts, it is now necessary because of the total shift in the level of threat we face on the front line. In 2025, we should not have to rely on a plastic shield and a wrestle with an armed prisoner to regain control. If PAVA fails, we need other tactical options and, at the moment, that is a taser. I shudder to think what would have happened if Frankland staff had not been carrying PAVA and I worry what outcome a similar attack by a 17-year-old ‘child’ in the youth custody estate would yield in the absence of any protections for staff working with juveniles.

Let us hope that the recent Government announcement that the YCS estate will be allowed to use PAVA is not a prolonged rollout process. This is a major success for the POA, but we must continue with the issues at hand for the wider membership. It is right that we should celebrate and promote our success in this area, but I will not rest until my members are protected as much as they possibly can be in all their workplaces.

I am angry, I am appalled, I cannot get the attack out of my mind, and I pray that my injured colleagues make a full recovery and receive all the support they need. I know, as a union, we will afford them anything they require to aid their rehabilitation.

This attack has shocked the nation, and the outpouring of public anger and support is a comfort to us all.

The culture of senior leaders of this service must change. We have some good people in senior positions who care for staff, but I fear they are being outnumbered and persuaded by those leaders who oppose any protections for staff whatsoever. They must change their attitude or leave the service. We are, after all, a uniformed frontline law enforcement agency, not a project for those who think we can change the ideology of someone who is at war with our way of life. I can assure you I will not rest in pursuing the protections you need.

Please join me in paying tribute to our brave colleagues at Frankland who need our support. I am determined to make a difference for you all.

Sincerest wishes and solidarity to you all.

MARK FAIRHURST
NATIONAL CHAIR