Report on HM Prison Noranside

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland 1998

10. PRISONERS

Prisoners’ Complaints Procedure

10.1 The Complaints Procedure Co-ordinator was a Residential Supervisor and a very comprehensive and well-maintained record keeping system was in place. There were relatively few cases, with most issues being resolved informally between prisoners and staff. That said, we were satisfied that prisoners were aware of both the existence of the scheme and how to use it, that they were not being denied access to any part of the procedure and that all timescales were being met. From a random sample of completed forms, we were also satisfied that full, detailed responses were being provided in all cases and that prisoners were being given the opportunity to pursue their cases to later stages of the process if they were not satisfied with their response. Proper procedures were also in place for prisoners wishing to have confidential access to either the Governor I/C or the MO. Quarterly statistical returns were being made to SPS HQ in accordance with standard procedures.

10.2 We were also satisfied with the arrangements in place for dealing with Internal Complaints Committee proceedings. All staff in the establishment were available for Committee duties and full briefings on the relevant procedures were provided to anyone who was going to be involved for the first time.

Prisoners’ Perceptions

10.3 During the course of the inspection, we met with a number of prisoner groups. Again, we have recorded the views as they were put to us but as with the staff groups, this should not be taken to imply that the Inspectorate is in full agreement with every point raised. However, where this report covers any of the comments in more detail, the relevant paragraph numbers are shown.

10.4 Relationships with staff. It was said that there were far too many petty rules being imposed in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner and claims were made that staff threatened prisoners with a return to closed conditions if they did not comply. Many said they held the view that but for the home leaves, they would prefer to be back in closed conditions because of that pettiness - paragraphs 3.6 and 9.30.

10.5 Accommodation standards were said to be generally better than in most other establishments though there were some complaints about the rooms being cold, showers that did not work and a general lack of hot water. There was said to be a shortage of irons and drying facilities for clothes and that it took too long for repairs on broken items of equipment to be carried out. Suggestions were made that Cameron House should be used for prisoners serving life sentences or for those on long paroles, rather than it lying empty - paragraphs 5.1-13.

10.6 Recreation facilities were criticised for their lack of variety and there were complaints about the gymnasium often being closed due to a lack of staff. It was suggested that the prison should obtain mountain bikes for recreational use and that prisoners should be allowed to go walking - paragraphs 5.17 and 6.36-41.

10.7 Drugs Counsellor. It was claimed that it was very difficult to get access to the services offered and there was criticism of the fact that there was no relapse prevention programme. Staff were also criticised for what some regarded as an obsessive attitude towards MDT and there were claims that as a result, the use of Class ‘A’ drugs had increased as a means of avoiding detection - paragraphs 4.4-22.

10.8 Visits. Many were unhappy about the recent introduction of a formal booking system, claiming that this was leading to a reduction in the number of visits being taken. Being restricted to a maximum of three adults at any one time and the fact that visitors were no longer able to bring in certain foodstuffs also came in for criticism, as did the cordoning off of certain parts of the outside grounds and shortage of outside seating areas - paragraphs 6.68-72.

10.9 Employment. It was claimed that wages at Noranside were lower than those in comparable open establishments or in the ‘top end’ regimes of closed prisons, whilst some were unhappy about the withdrawal of outplacements in a Social Work setting. There was said to be a lack of waterproof clothing for those involved in outdoor work - paragraphs 6.23-28 and 6.32-35.

10.10 Education. It was said that there had been a reduction in the number of courses available and the number of prisoners who could attend, with it also being difficult to get a place on an outside College course - paragraphs 6.42-54.

10.11 Food. The menu was described as being repetitive, whilst not all supported a continental breakfast. Some criticised the quality of the food - paragraphs 7.1-6.

10.12 Medical Services. Some observed that there was no nurse or MO available in the establishment after mid-day - paragraphs 8.6-18.

Comment

10.13 We found ourselves in agreement with many of the issues raised by the prisoners. For example, we have made a recommendation about the need to clarify the position with regard to local rules and have also suggested that there should be clear guidelines about the situation with regard to a possible return to closed conditions. Similarly, this report suggests improvements with regard to drying facilities, the provision of recreation, access to the gymnasium and the level of the education service on offer. We believe also that there is scope for improving the level of service being provided by the Staff Drug Team and we have recommended an increase in the number of nursing hours for the establishment.

10.14 On the question of visits, we noted that a survey was to be conducted on the impact of the new arrangements though as a general observation, we should record that we consider the arrangements at HMP Penninghame to be more relaxed. We note their comments about wages but we understand that this is an issue that is currently being addressed at national level by SPS. We did not support the prisoners in their views about the repetitiveness of the menu or about the quality of the food on offer.