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 their views as they were put to us though this 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 We received mixed views on the issue of drugs in the establishment. Some prisoners told us that drugs were freely available within the prison and that many prisoners, including some who had never injected before, were moving away from cannabis to heroin in order to reduce the risk of MDT detection. On the other hand, some prisoners said that though there were many drug users within the prisoner population, there were not enough drugs in circulation to feed a habit. What was a unanimous view was that there was insufficient help or support programmes available for those who did want to give up their habit and the lack of any methadone programme was also criticised - paragraphs 5.8-22.

10.3 Visit arrangements came in for criticism for all groups, particularly with regard to the lack of space within the visits room, the lack of facilities for children and the intimidating presence of staff who were regarded as displaying an over-zealous approach to making drug finds. Remand prisoners were unhappy over the fact that only two places were available for them during the evening sessions, which made it difficult for those with a working wife, and it was claimed that visits were always restricted to 30 minutes even if places on later sessions were not being taken up. There were also claims that visitors were sometimes treated with disrespect by staff - paragraphs 6.54-60 and 6.62.

10.4 Another issue on which mixed views were received was in connection with relationships with staff. It was claimed that some members of staff displayed a bad attitude towards and a lack of interest in prisoners with some particular criticism being directed against the attitude of staff in the visits room. On the positive side, some prisoners felt that staff in the Residential function maintained good professional relationships with prisoners and were generally considered to be helpful - paragraphs 4.3 and 9.22.

10.5 The routine within the prison came in for some major criticism and in particular the boredom as a result of what was seen as a lack of meaningful recreational facilities, especially for prisoners on protection who said that they could be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. Remand prisoners said that they rarely got to see a video and very few prisoners knew about the availability of board games. It was claimed that there were insufficient card telephones and with no booking system in operation, getting access to a telephone could be difficult. The location of the telephones also made it difficult to hold a private conversation. On the positive side, most prisoners whom we met confirmed that they were offered the opportunity of outdoor exercise every day - paragraphs 3.5-10, 3.12-16 and 3.19-20.

10.6 On the issue of food, we were told that the portions were too small and that meals were regularly served cold. Remand prisoners were pleased to be included in the advance menu system but there were complaints that there was not enough variety in the menu - paragraphs 7.1-7.

10.7 Some prisoners complained about education claiming that there was not enough provision and that staff in the Education Unit were too slow in responding to requests for classes. Others felt that the choice of subjects on offer was restricted due to the availability of teachers and though they appreciated the opportunities to participate in distance learning, they did not get enough access to teachers to discuss any problems which they might be encountering - paragraphs 6.29-34.

10.8 Gymnasium facilities came in for unanimous praise but we received mixed views on the amount of access. Some prisoners were happy with the regular sessions which they received whilst others felt that there were insufficient sessions available for the size of the prisoner population and that it was always the same people who got to attend. Some complaints were raised about the frequency with which PE sessions were cancelled, often at short notice, because staff were not available - paragraphs 6.24-28.

10.9 Some prisoners felt that their wages were too low and irrelevant to the local economy. We were also told that the working environment in the worksheds was poor and whilst those on protection were pleased to have been given the opportunity to do some work, they would have preferred either to be working in a workshop or have cell association whilst they were working in order to break the monotony - paragraphs 6.18-21.

10.10 Amongst the other issues which were raised were claims that canteen supplies were very limited (paragraph 7.10), that though there was regular access to the prisoners’ library, the facility itself was very poor (paragraph 6.35) and that the medical services on offer were no use to anyone on drugs as the only thing ever offered was paracetamol (paragraph 8.16).

Comment

10.11 We did not agree with the view that drugs were freely available within the prison though it seemed certain that a fair amount was getting in. We do agree, however, that more could be done to assist those with serious drug problems who asked for help. As regards visit arrangements, we share the concerns about the facilities but found no evidence to support the view that visitors were treated with disrespect by staff. We have suggested that some improvements be made to the routine - particularly for those on protection - and we agree that steps should be taken to provide warmer meals. However, in our view the Education Unit did offer a fairly broad curriculum and felt that the overall quality of the service was of a high standard, though we do share the concerns expressed about the poor working environment in the worksheds.

Prisoners Grievance Procedure

10.12 The procedures for dealing with prisoners complaints were well established within the prison and we were satisfied that both staff and prisoners were aware of how the system operated. Appropriate information about the scheme was readily available and was being well advertised on notice boards throughout the establishment.

10.13 An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was convened on an as required basis - at the time of our inspection, approximately every ten days - and was normally chaired by a Unit Manager, with Residential Officers making up the rest of the membership. All members had received appropriate training and steps were taken to ensure that none of the Committee members had had any prior involvement in any of the cases to be heard. Timescales were being met and from the records examined, we were satisfied that complaints were being dealt with in a fair and equitable manner and in accordance with SPS guidelines.

10.14 There were, however, two issues where we felt that, with some minor adjustment, improvements could be made and about which we have written to the Governor. Firstly, membership of the ICC should be extended across a wider range of functions and secondly, some method should be found of recording that a prisoner has been informed of his rights of appeal when a case has been rejected.