APPENDIX Dnr O 7-2018 Page 13 (15) Working with the use of isolation-breaking measures became relevant in 2004 and 2005 as a one-off issue due to the high occupancy. It was not until around 2010 that it became a central issue for the entire agency and more systematic work began. However, no follow-up tools were developed. When developing a support system for the use of isolation-breaking measures, the agency needs to review definitions, for example of association place in relation to restriction places and new forms of isolation-breaking measures such as restriction groups. In addition, the agency needs to review what is to be measured. Furthermore, everyone, internally and externally, and not least the inmates, must understand what is being measured. The report Fewer people in remand prison and reduced isolation (SOU 2016:52) did not consider the problem of the situation for inmates segregated with no basis in law, and the Prison and Probation Service does not fulfil the requirements of the Remand Prisons Act in such cases. Other This section addressed the following issues: a) b) Has the Prison and Probation Service considered introducing security classes in remand prisons which correspond to the classes used in prisons? What needs are there for association departments for inmates without restrictions and when does the Prison and Probation Service plan to meet any such needs? The representatives of the Prison and Probation Service stated that it is not relevant to introduce security classes in remand prisons corresponding to those in prisons. Such a system would further complicate the placement of inmates and risk leading to the increased isolation of inmates. More association places are needed. In the ongoing construction of new remand prisons, restriction places are built in corridors that can be divided (sectioned) and converted into association places. There are areas where inmates can associate. No association departments are being built. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that information had been received that the Prison and Probation Service was reducing the transportation organisation that began to be developed following the change in legislation on 1 April 2017. The representatives of the Prison and Probation Service were asked whether this will lead to the agency no longer performing emergency transportations in accordance with, inter alia, LVM [Care of Abusers Act (1988:870)], LVU [Care of Young Persons Act (1990:52)] and LPT [Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act (1991:1128)]. According to the representatives of the Prison and Probation Service, the agency will return to the organisation of transportation that the agency received funding for in 2017, that is phase one. The handover of transportation for the purposes of judicial assistance would take place in three phases, of which phase two was finished in 2018 and approximately 200 prison guards were employed for the organisation of the transportation. These employees will not be – 79 – B