10. UNDER - 21 REMANDS

Remands Perceptions

10.1 During the course of our inspection we met with a number of remand 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 The general routine was deemed by all groups to include too much time spent locked in their cells and as most were located in single cells, more cellular association was felt to be necessary. We were told that recreation facilities lacked variation and that there was a poor choice of activities, with most of the videos shown being repeats; we were told that some staff even brought in videos from home. Some felt that more work opportunities should be available and the library facilities were also described as being poor, both in terms of the quality and quantity of books - paragraphs 3.1-33.

10.3 There were mixed views presented to us on the PE programme. Most were satisfied with the service being provided but felt that the variety in the programme could be improved by moving away from the emphasis on football and weights - paragraphs 6.29-36.

10.4 We also received mixed comments about food and we were told that on some occasions it was good but not always. Some of the issues raised were around lack of choice, particularly salads, and small portions at the weekends. The timing of the meals - and especially the tea meal at the weekend - was also raised by some - paragraphs 7.1-6.

10.5 Relationships with staff were generally reported to be good, with no major issues being raised, though there were some comments about one division being stricter than the other, particularly with regard to the amount of time spent on the telephone and access to cell association. It was also claimed that some staff ignored any requests from remands to use the Grievance Procedure (GP) scheme - paragraphs 10.11-13.

10.6 Access to telephones was perceived by all the groups as being particularly poor. The main areas of complaint were that there were too few telephones, which meant that time limits were imposed on individuals. Access was only available during recreation periods and it was claimed that staff would not allow access at other times; it was also said that a booking system was in use which included time restrictions on calls to solicitors. The only positive aspect raised was that there were no difficulties in obtaining telephone cards - paragraph 5.1.

10.7 The issue of visits was raised, with some negative comments from all groups around the restricted access (15 minutes) at weekends. Some also raised the lack of physical contact because of the barrier across the tables. However, midweek visits were viewed more positively due to the fact that depending on demand, they could last up to two hours - paragraphs 6.69-75.

10.8 The Learning Centre was commented on positively in terms of the range of subjects available, with the only issue being that all groups wanted more access to education - paragraphs 6.37-45.

10.9 There were some minor comments made about cells being cold, the chemical toilets being unattractive to use and wages requiring a review. However, it was also pointed out that the remands felt safe in Longriggend as there was always staff around.

Comment

10.10 In general terms, we were impressed by the lack of major complaints raised by the remands and by the positive comments they provided in relation to a number of areas. We agreed that the routine within the establishment would benefit from some imagination and stimulation and we shared their concerns about access to telephones and weekend visits. However, we found quality of the food on offer to be satisfactory.

Grievance Procedure Scheme

10.11 From our discussions with remands/prisoners, it was clear that everyone was aware of the existence of the GP scheme; we noted also that posters about the scheme were on prominent display throughout the Institution and that details were also included in the Prisoners Information Pack.

10.12 An Internal Complaints Committee structure was in place and operated on the basis of holding meetings on an as required basis. However, because there were no cases to consider, the Committee had not met since the end of 1996. Also, as a result of recent staff transfers, at the time of inspection there were only two members of staff in the Institution who were able to perform that function. We suggest, therefore, that as a matter of urgency more staff should be trained in Committee duties so that a full quorum is always available. We suggest also that there should be a review of the record-keeping system for all GP cases - there were no records available for us to check.

Comment

10.13 The nature of the population at Longriggend and the fact that the average stay is only 17 days are no doubt influencing factors on the fairly limited use of the GP scheme. We also fully support the principle operated in the Institution that where possible, any complaints should be resolved as soon as possible by Hall staff. However, those factors should not lead to any feelings of complacency and it was clear that the local structure needed some fresh impetus. We have also suggested to the Complaints Commissioner that there might be merit in his visiting the Institution to address staff.