strapped prisons may have fewer incentives to offer opportunities to people who they believe may be deported within a short space of time. The prison service policy, which says it ‘does not provide a policy framework for the day-to-day management of foreign national prisoners ‘does say they should be ‘managed in the same way as British nationals while recognising their individual needs.’6 One response of the government was to introduce the hub and spoke system for allocating prisoners in May 2009. Previously, people in prison were allocated to a prison primarily by location close to home and sentence progression needs, as much as this is possible in an overcrowded system. However, this system brought in a new allocation process for category B and C male prisoners. The hub and spoke system was brought in to increase the number of people deported from prisons. It is based on a service level agreement between NOMS and UKBA. The six ‘hub’ prisons7 have UKBA staff working in them full time and UKBA also cover other prisons, known as the ‘spoke’ prisons. People were allocated to these prisons in order to facilitate UKBA working on their immigration cases There was no consultation before the scheme came in and the usual bodies (Prison Inspectorate and other stakeholders) were unaware that it was being introduced. No equality impact assessment was done before the policy was implemented and therefore the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) appealed this. Following the EHRC appeal, it was confirmed that prisoners could keep the right to apply for a transfer to or out of a hub prison. This could be for any number of reasons, such as family visits, court attendance, or the need to do a particular offending behaviour course. Applications must be considered in the normal way and it would be unlawful for a governor to refuse a transfer application on the basis of immigration status alone. The shift in allocation practice and the process of transferring people meant that prisons were not being used as places of rehabilitation but by default as immigration processing or holding centres. Decisions on allocating prisoners were taken purely on their assumed immigration status as a potential deportee, overriding the usual prison procedures that look at their closeness to their family home, any health or disability needs and their offending behaviour and sentence progression needs. However, prisons are not removal centres. The purpose of prison is defined in statute as to encourage and assist prisoners to lead a good and useful life. This should apply to all people in prison and therefore foreign national prisoners should be afforded equivalent rehabilitative and resettlement opportunities to those that British nationals receive. This leads to the question of whether the purpose of prison has significantly changed when holding this population. Is the prison service acting as an arm of the immigration service and warehousing people who are eligible to be deported rather than fulfilling its primary purpose of rehabilitation? Defining and managing people through the prism of their immigration status leads to discriminatory practice. It is impossible to predict how this policy change will develop. However, under the payment-by-results agenda, reoffending will be the key assessment of success and the criteria for accessing funding and resources. If people are seen as deportees, there is little interest in whether they will reoffend in another country and no statistics are collected or held on this. Foreign national prisoners are already being excluded from opportunities to reduce reoffending8. It is therefore unclear how they will fare and how services to this vulnerable group will be managed under this agenda. The shift in allocation practice and the process of transferring people meant that prisons were not being used as places of rehabilitation but by default as immigration processing or holding centres. 6. 7. 8. 9. Legal advice It is like trying to cross a busy road in the rush hour in a foreign country. I do not know whose arm to take to ensure I am not killed by the cars.9 Foreign national prisoners are amongst the most vulnerable and in need of protection in prison. They may Prison Service Instruction 52/2011 1.2. HMPs Risley, Hewell, Morton Hall, The Mount, The Verne and Wormwood Scrubs. Morton Hall has subsequently been re-designated as an immigration removal centre. e.g. see HMIP’s Report of an announced inspection of HMP Canterbury, 16-20 July 2012. Prisoner quoted in No Way Out, Prison Reform Trust 2012:11. Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 47