Accommodation

3.1 Low Moss has 15 residential dormitories plus a small accommodation unit which forms part of the Health Centre and Alba House - both of which are discussed at later sections of this report. One of the dormitories had 10 beds and was used to accommodate prisoners immediately prior to their liberation whilst another (and its annex) contained 30 beds and was used by prisoners working in the kitchen. Both of those areas were separate from the main accommodation area where there were 13 dormitories of varying capacities between 23 and 27. Each of the living units had communal radio and television and their own toilet/shower area and since our last inspection, a staff office/interview room had been constructed in each of the 13 dormitories which comprised the main accommodation area.

3.2 As part of our inspection, we visited all of these areas and found that standards tended to vary between the drug-free dormitories which formed part of the local enhanced regime scheme (see paragraphs 3.10, 5.16 and 5.25) and the standard dormitories. In general terms, all the dormitories were neat and tidy and the overall standard of cleanliness was very satisfactory. We were, however, disappointed to find that, with the exception of the dormitory annex for the kitchen party and the pre-liberation dormitory, the condition of the prisoners’ personal locker units was considerably below what we would regard as being a basic standard. The lockers were in a universally poor condition and lacked any hanging space for prisoners’ clothes or any means of safely securing personal items. We had concerns about the poor state of the majority of mattresses throughout the establishment, many of which also lacked fire retardant covers. Given the vulnerability of the timber-built accommodation units, this presented a particularly unacceptable fire risk. We also saw evidence of pillows being issued which we regarded as being unfit for use.

3.3 We acknowledge that the establishment’s Strategic Plan for 1998-99 contains a proposal for the replacement of both mattresses and locker units and we trust that this programme will be implemented as a matter of priority. However, of particular concern to us was the fact that whilst mattresses and pillows of an unacceptable condition were in use, stocks of brand new items were being held in the Stores but we were told that they could not be accessed by the Residential areas because their kit budget for the year was exhausted. We strongly urge, therefore, that the local budgetary procedures be reviewed to ensure that items in use of an unacceptable standard can be replaced by available new items on an as required basis.

3.4 We noted that the arrangements for the display of information for prisoners were extremely limited and were not consistently applied throughout the residential areas. We suggest, therefore, that arrangements should be made to ensure the consistent provision of up-to-date essential information at all times.

3.5 The main difference between the standard accommodation units and those which were classed as drug-free was that in the latter areas, bunk beds had been introduced and the space so created had been converted into a recreation area with a pool table. Also, fire retardant curtains had been installed.

Comment

3.6 Whilst accepting the limitations that are imposed by the use of dormitories, it is our view that every effort should be made to set and maintain standards which ensure a reasonable and acceptable quality of life for all prisoners. We were pleased to learn that there were proposals to upgrade the locker units and mattresses and that in recognition of the fact that prisoners spent long periods in the dormitories during the evening and at weekends, hot water dispensing facilities were about to be introduced into each dormitory. However, it was our view that the contrast between the facilities offered by the enhanced regime and those in the standard regime was too wide. We understand the desire to make the top-end a more attractive proposition but in our view, that could be achieved through the provision of regime enhancements rather than through the deprivation of what we consider to be basic day-to-day essentials, such as an iron, ironing board, curtains and chairs. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a dormitory maintenance strategy, aligned to the SPS’s Residential Operating Standards, which ensures an upgrading of all accommodation units with an effective monitoring and audit system in place to ensure its success.

3.7 Whilst reducing unit costs is very much in the public interest, this should not be achieved at the expense of humane living conditions and access to personal space. For that reason, we were concerned that the recent extended capacity to 27 in some of the dormitories may have rendered them over populated. We suggest, therefore, that an early review of dormitory capacities should be undertaken and we would be surprised if such a review concluded that the number of prisoners located in each dormitory should exceed 22.

Routine

3.8 On weekdays, the morning unlock was at 0630 hours with prisoners then moving to the dining hall at 0710 for breakfast. At 0800 hours the sick parade was held and the remaining prisoners went to the worksheds, where they remained until they moved back to the dining hall for lunch, which was served just after 1200 hours. At 1240, prisoners were either given outdoor exercise or were locked in the dormitories and at 1320 hours they returned to the worksheds. The working day finished at 1600 hours when the prisoners moved back to the dining hall for their evening meal before returning to the dormitories at 1645 hours. At that time personal mail and newspapers were distributed and the dormitories were locked until 1800 hours when there were opportunities to use the telephone or, on some evenings, to have access to the canteen. Those not participating in either activity remained in the dormitories, which was where recreation was held. The dormitories remained locked until the following morning with prisoners deciding themselves when to go to bed.

3.9 At weekends, morning unlock was at 0730 hours followed by breakfast at 0810 hours. At 0900 hours on Saturdays there was a dormitory inspection by the Duty Manager whilst at the same time on Sundays, Church Services were available. At 1015 hours there was either outdoor exercise or prisoners were locked in their dormitories, though on those latter occasions there were opportunities to use the telephone. Lunch was at 1115 hours followed by a period of lock up from 1150 hours. From 1330 hours, visit sessions were held and again there were opportunities for access to the telephone. The evening meal was around 1600 hours with evening lock up being at 1640.

3.10 After induction (see paragraphs 6.8-14) prisoners were allocated whatever dormitory spaces were available, with the only exceptions being for those who worked in the kitchen, for whom there was a separate accommodation area (see paragraph 7.1) and those prisoners who were over 35 for whom two dormitories had been specifically allocated. However, as part of a recently introduced local initiative, four of the dormitories had been designated as drug-free areas and in those locations, prisoners received some benefits over the standard entitlements in the other areas. For example, as noted above, recreation was taken in the dormitories and in the standard areas this comprised television, radio and board games. In the drug-free areas, there was a form of progression which comprised an incremental scale of additional privileges so that prisoners in the first of those dormitories could have access to items such as personal stereos, hand held computer games and their own items of shaving equipment. In the second top dormitory there was a pool table, with prisoners also having access to £3.50 per week in personal cash and two additional visits per month. In the top dormitory, there was a video player and prisoners could have the use of an iron and an ironing board - but see paragraph 3.6.

3.11 We had some concerns about the arrangements for outdoor exercise. Firstly, the period set aside for that activity was only about 40 minutes and the decision on whether it should be allowed was made by staff and depended on their view of the weather conditions. (We were told that in recent times, there had been very few occasions when outdoor exercise was offered.) Secondly, under a local arrangement, prisoners were not allowed to opt out and so it was compulsory for everyone either to be on exercise or to be locked in their dormitory. We were pleased to learn, therefore, that immediately following our inspection, those arrangements were altered with the period in question now having been extended to one hour with prisoners being given the choice as to whether or not they wished to participate.

3.12 Another major area of concern was with regard to the frequency of kit changes. At the time of our inspection, underwear was only being changed twice a week, whilst towels and shirts were changed once a week. Those arrangements were contrary to SPS Operating Standards and one of the reasons for the problem was the lack of any local laundry facility. However, this is discussed in more detail at    paragraphs 7.12-14 where we recommend that steps are taken to ensure that prisoners are provided with kit changes which comply with the standards laid down by the SPS.

3.13 We noted also that although duvet covers were being laundered every two weeks, they were not necessarily being cleaned before a new prisoner was allocated a bed. Whilst we acknowledge that Low Moss has a high prisoner turnover, we do not consider it to be a hygienic practice to allow prisoners to be provided with bedding which had been used by someone else without first being laundered, a practice which should be reviewed as a matter of priority.

3.14 Although various periods during the week were set aside to enable prisoners to have access to the telephone, the actual facilities were very limited. There were two telephones in a room adjacent to the dining hall but those were for the exclusive use of the 30 prisoners who worked in the kitchen and whose living accommodation and recreational facilities were in that area. For the remainder of the population - i.e. some 350-370 prisoners - there were only four telephones and these were all located next to each other in the corridor outside a staff office. There was no systematic booking procedure in operation and because the vast majority of prisoners were making local calls, those who did manage to get access could be on for a considerable length of time. It was our view that significant numbers of prisoners were getting either no or very limited access to the telephone. We noted that a Strategic Bid had been submitted for the provision of an additional four telephones at a cost of some £10,500 and this is a bid which we regard as being absolutely vital. We recommend, therefore, that the establishment should be provided with the funding necessary to increase the number of telephones in line with their Strategic Bid.

3.15 As regards other issues relating to the daily routine, we were satisfied with the arrangements for the distribution of prisoners’ mail and for prisoners’ access to the Prison Rules and the Prisoner’s Handbook. Showering facilities were available in each dormitory and there were no restrictions on the number of times prisoners could make use of them. We noted also that every day, three newspapers were supplied to each dormitory and these were in addition to the personal purchases which prisoners could make from their own money.

Comment

3.16 Whilst we acknowledge the problems of managing a large prisoner population which changes on a regular basis, we considered that a number of alterations to the routine, as detailed above, could be introduced which would enhance living conditions for prisoners in the establishment. At the time of our previous inspection, the dining hall was being used as the main recreation facility and we did consider suggesting a return to that system. However, we concluded that apart from having the opportunity to gain access to some more telephones, there was no real advantage over the current system of recreation taking place in the dormitories. That said, we felt that the existing recreation arrangements lacked imagination and we suggest that they should be reviewed.

3.17 We also considered that, in overall terms, there were too many petty rules in existence. For example, we could see no logic in the rule which said that during out of work hours, prisoners could only wear their training shoes when they were wearing track suit bottoms and not when they were wearing denims or the insistence by certain members of staff that prisoners should not have the collars of their raincoats turned up even in periods of cold or wet weather. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a review of all local rules to assess their purpose and relevance and also to ensure that they are applied consistently.

3.18 Finally, as noted above, one of the establishment’s main problems is that of managing the high turnover in its population. We noted that after induction, prisoners were normally allocated a place wherever there was a space. We suggest, however, that consideration might be given to the possibility of having specific dormitories for specific sentence lengths. Under such a system, it might be possible for staff to concentrate on the particular needs of each dormitory’s population as these will inevitably vary according to sentence length.