10. Prisoners

Prisoners Perceptions

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

10.2 In addition to Inspectorate meetings, a Lay Observer attached to the team for the purpose of this inspection also met with a number of prisoner groups. The purpose of that arrangement was to ensure that the issues raised by prisoners with the Inspectorate were consistent and were unbiased by the authority of the Chief Inspector’s Office. His unedited report on these meetings is included in full at Annex 1.

10.3 On the issue of visits, we were told that staff’s attitude and presence made them a very intimidating experience. It was claimed that it could take some time for prisoners’ names to be entered on the visits computer which could delay the first visit. Criticism was also levelled at the lack of refreshment facilities within the visits room whilst the layout of the room meant that it was difficult to hold a private conversation without others hearing what was being said - paragraphs 6.77-82.

10.4 Food was another issue that was raised by all the groups. The vast majority said that it was cold and that there was insufficient choice, though the general view was that the food was better when there was bulk feeding as opposed to the plated system - paragraphs 7.1-8.

10.5 Employment was another area of concern, mainly over the difficulties in getting a place on a work party. It was claimed that prisoners could be on waiting lists for long periods and the wages when not working did not allow the purchase of even basics from the canteen. It was suggested that there should be more rotation in the work parties to accommodate those who wanted to work - paragraphs 6.18-29.

10.6 Relationships with staff were described as being mixed and the generally held view was that relationships depended on which shift was on duty - paragraph 4.8.

10.7 As regards the mix of prisoners within the establishment, the suggestion was that Barlinnie was holding too many LTPs and that more efforts should be made to separate them from the short termers; we were told that some LTPs were sharing cells with short termers - paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.2-9.

10.8 On the general issue of the regime and routine within the Halls, a number of topics was raised including:-

10.8.1 Showering facilities - inadequate and therefore difficult to obtain on a regular basis; prisoners often missed recreation just to get the chance to have a shower.

10.8.2 Card telephones in the Halls - these were inadequate in number which made access very difficult.

10.8.3 Kit and laundry services - it was difficult to get regular changes of kit, especially towels and denims, and shortages of items such as pillowcases and clean blankets were commonplace.

10.8.4 Toilets and ablutions - there was limited access to toilets during day time lock-up periods and few opportunities for slop outs. Also, there was limited access to cleaning materials for chamber pots.

10.8.5 Exercise - very few, if any, prisoners were getting their statutory entitlement. Outdoor exercise was a very rare occurrence.

10.8.6 Recreation - there was limited access to fairly limited and basic facilities.

10.9 We received mixed views on the question of medical treatment. One group said that they were very satisfied with the overall service which compared very favourably with community medical services. On the other hand, some prisoners were very critical and claimed that they often had to wait for lengthy periods before being seen by a doctor and that the Governor had banned the prescription of a number of painkillers - paragraphs 8.7-15 and 8.41.

10.10 It was claimed that up to 80% of the prisoner population was involved in drug taking at some point in their sentence and that most of the violence within the prison was drug related. It was also claimed that the most common drug being used was cannabis, though there was a move towards heroin as a way of reducing the risk of being caught through a drug test. The view was that random MDT would never stop the influx of drugs to the establishment and there was criticism of the lack of facilities to help those who wanted to come off drugs - paragraphs 5.10-27.

10.11 On the positive side, there was praise for the education service which was available (paragraphs 6.35-40) and for the amount of access to the PE facilities (paragraphs 6.30-34). However, there was criticism of the GP Scheme with some prisoners being of the opinion that the forms they submitted were never put forward and most prisoners felt that the system took so long that eventually they just gave up - paragraphs 10.15-18.

Comment

10.12 Some of the criticisms expressed by the prisoners groups confirmed our observations. The quality of the basic services such as showering and ablutions, kit changes, food and exercise need to be improved.

10.13 The visiting facilities did leave much to be desired. However, given the throughput which had to be accommodated, we did not see how the present arrangements could be improved though the provision of the purpose built visiting facility will greatly improve matters in this respect.

10.14 The introduction of MDT had increased the demand for more support services and plans were well advanced to address this whole issue. The comments on the standards of healthcare were not substantiated and we consider the provision of a dedicated nursing provision in each accommodation block to be a positive development. We do, however, support the view that more work opportunities need to be provided, an issue which is to be addressed through the establishment’s Strategic Plan.

Prisoners Grievance Procedure

10.15 Notices were displayed in all Halls giving details of the Grievance Procedure (GP) scheme and it was clear that the policy was that every effort should be made by Hall staff to resolve complaints at first hand.

10.16 We were satisfied that proper arrangements were in place for the constitution of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) though we were concerned to learn that the Committee only met on average once every month, which meant that it was not always possible to meet the prescribed timescales. Also, though we were assured that prisoners whose complaints were not upheld by the ICC were always advised of how to progress their case through the scheme, there was no written record of such advice. Both these issues were brought to the attention of the Chairman of the ICC. Approximately 12 complaints were considered by the ICC each month.

Comment

10.17 On examining the records, we were satisfied that prisoners’ complaints were being dealt with in a fair and equitable manner and in accordance with SPS guidelines, despite prisoners’ adverse comments about the scheme - see paragraph 10.11. We noted that more than 50% of the cases which went to the ICC resulted in the complaints being upheld.

10.18 We were somewhat surprised at the comparatively few cases which were submitted to the Prisons Complaints Commission though we could find no specific reason for this.