9 THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S SPECIAL C ASE RE VIE W ON THE ISOLATION OF INMATES IN REMAND PRISON this system would be in operation nor how it will be designed.3 At the dialogue meeting, the representatives of the Prison and Probation Service stated that, from the prestudy carried out, it could be established that none of the surveys taken so far concerning the use of isolation-breaking measures are sufficient to be applied at a local level. Additionally, the surveys cannot be used to make national comparisons. For this reason, the agency wants to develop and introduce a central support system for isolation-breaking measures. A reasonable estimate, according to the Prison and Probation Service, is that it would take approximately five years from starting the project until there is a functioning support system in place. Whilst awaiting such a support system, the Prison and Probation Service will produce an agency-wide Excel file into which the remand prisons must report their use of isolation-breaking measures. The Prison and Probation Service planned to bring this Excel file into use in spring 2019.4 In a statement following the dialogue meeting, the Prison and Probation Service stated that the agency had not been able to keep to its schedule for introducing this centralised, agency-wide Excel file. The work was to be resumed after the summer in order to be completed before the end of 2019.5 At the dialogue meeting, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasised it is very serious and deeply unsatisfactory that the Prison and Probation Service’s national surveys of the use of isolation-breaking measures are not reliable.6 It is partly because the measurements are only made seven times per year, and partly due to a lack 3 See the Prison and Probation Service’s reporting back on 14 June 2018 dnr 416-2017 p. 4. 4 See The Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 7-2018 pp. 10 and 11. 5 See the Prison and Probation Service’s statement on 30 August 2019, dnr O 7-2018. 6 See The Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 7-2018 p. 10. of central governance that remand prisons do not define, measure nor follow up on the use of isolation-breaking measures in a comprehensive manner. In her decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasised that these shortcomings make it, above all, difficult for the Prison and Proba- It is serious that the Prison tion Service to follow and Probation Service’s the work that takes surveys are unreliable place at the local level in breaking the isolation of inmates held on remand. In addition, the risk of non-response from a remand prison and the fact that a remand prison does not record isolation-breaking measures means that the surveys are associated with such uncertainty that they cannot be used at a general level either. It is, for example, not possible to compare the results from different years, which means that the surveys – in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman – become almost useless. This lack of reliable statistics means that it is not possible to say with any certainty which direction the development is going. Additionally – in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman – the lack of a proper support system makes it difficult for the Prison and Probation Service to evaluate its own work with regard to the use of isolation-breaking measures. The continuous recording of the extent to which inmates receive isolation-breaking measures is necessary for the Prison and Probation Service to be able to follow the work over time and for its staff to be able to attend to inmates who are at risk of being isolated. For this reason, it is very important that the Prison and Probation Service has such a system in place and that it is used correctly. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the Prison and Probation Service’s work to develop a new support – 62 –