|
|
|
|
10.1 During the course of our inspection, we met with a number of YO and 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 this report covers any of the comments in more detail, the relevant paragraph numbers are shown.
10.2 Relationships with staff were generally described as being very good. One group said that they were in fact excellent and that they particularly appreciated the use of first name terms. Most said, however, that whilst relationships with the majority of staff were good, the situation was not as good as it had been prior to the major incident in 1998. We were told that since then, many of the staff had become very petty in their application of the rules and that they needed to relax a bit more. Overall, however, the situation was considered to be better than in many other establishments -; paragraph 9.23.
10.3 The induction process was criticised by all groups. Those on remand claimed that that there was no formal programme for them and that they got all their information from other prisoners. Convicted YOs thought that the programme was poor and that they did not receive enough information. The view was also expressed that there should be a national induction programme for YOs serving long sentences, similar to that available for adults at the NIC -; paragraphs 6.6 - 6.12.
10.4 Sentence Planning was similarly criticised with claims that the Institution was making no effort to help and that long-term YOs were just putting in the time until they moved to an adult establishment. All the YOs had been allocated a Personal Officer but we were told that they rarely met on a formal basis -; paragraph 6.7.
10.5 Access to Offending Behaviour Programmes was said to be mixed. Some YOs said that though drugs and cognitive skills programmes were available, the waiting lists were excessive. Other YOs claimed that they were never offered the opportunity to participate in programmes -; paragraphs 6.13 - 6.14.
10.6 Drugs were not regarded as a major issue within the Institution. Remand prisoners claimed that the introduction of MDT had meant that there was a move away from cannabis to opiates and that though help was available for those who wanted to come off drugs, it was difficult to get access. The main criticism, however, was over the fact that closed visits were now being imposed after one positive MDT test and this was regarded as being unfair. It was suggested also that the introduction of this new policy had been badly handled -; paragraphs 4.11 - 4.32.
10.7 Employment was criticised as being boring when it was available, though some were unhappy at not having a job at all. The main exception was the group of protection prisoners who enjoyed having their own work party in the laundry, though they did feel that the wages were too low -; paragraphs 6.25 - 6.27 and 7.10 - 7.12.
10.8 Visit arrangements were regarded as being very good with no problems about the amount of access. The main complaints were around the fact that smoking was not allowed in the visits room and some convicted YOs would have preferred to have had midweek rather than weekend sessions -; paragraphs 6.43 - 6.49.
10.9 Recreation arrangements were described as being very boring and there was criticism of the fact that there was no longer any access on weekend evenings. There was little awareness of the facilities that would be made available following completion of the refurbishment programme -; paragraphs 5.12, 5.15, 5.17 and 5.19.
10.10 Food was said to be good for those who ate in the dining hall but less so for those whose meals were delivered to their Halls -; i.e. 'B' Hall and the Female Unit -; where it was said to be cold by the time it was served. Meal times were criticised for being too early -; paragraphs 7.1 - 7.7.
10.11 Access to medical services received mixed views. Some groups said that they received an excellent service from the MO, particularly in the case of any emergency treatment that might be required, whereas others were critical of the level of service and the treatment offered. There was general criticism of the amount of access to the dentist -; paragraphs 8.10 - 8.14 and 8.37 - 8.40.
10.12 Complaints Procedure came in for universal criticism with claims that no one had any confidence in the system which was seen as a waste of time. It was described as not being an effective way of making a complaint with the general view being that senior staff in the Institution blocked any complaints raised -; paragraphs 10.18 - 10.20.
10.13 Education was praised by those who received it with the view being expressed that students were treated with respect. Remand prisoners acknowledged that they understood that the concentration of effort had to be on the convicted YO population but said that they would welcome the opportunity to participate -; paragraphs 6.34 - 6.37.
10.14 Physical Education was regarded as good with no real problems over the amount of access -; paragraphs 6.28 - 6.33.
10.15 Finally, it was suggested to us by a number of groups that televisions in cells would reduce boredom and would be the best possible incentive to good behaviour within the establishment. Female prisoners considered it unfair that they did not have this privilege when in-cell televisions were available for their counterparts at Cornton Vale.
10.16 Although experience has shown us that prisoners tend to use these group sessions as an opportunity to complain about many aspects of life within their establishment, we were particularly disappointed with the attitude of some of the participants during this inspection. In particular, we found the mainstream convicted YOs to be less than co-operative and at times, they had little constructive comment to offer on most of the issues raised. The majority of those whom we met from this section of the population had been involved in the recent major incident and now seemed to have a very negative and biased view of life in the Institution.
10.17 Turning to the specific issues raised, we agreed that relationships with staff were very good. We were also in general agreement that improvements were needed to the arrangements for induction, sentence planning and offending behaviour programmes and we have recommended in this report that there should be an NIC-style induction process for all YOs serving long-term sentences. We have made a number of suggestions as to how the Institution might improve its arrangements for dealing with drugs issues. However, as regards the criticisms of the closed visits policy, it should be noted that since it was introduced, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of positive drug tests. We shared the concerns expressed about employment, recreation and education but we felt that the no smoking policy for the visit room was a positive development. We agreed that the food was good though we have criticised the times at which some meals were being served. We thought that medical services were good and noted that steps had been taken to reduce the dentist's waiting list. Finally, we found no evidence to support the claim that CP forms were being blocked -; indeed, the number of cases going to the Complaints Commissioner indicates the opposite.
10.18 Supplies of the Complaints Procedure forms were readily available in the residential areas and we were satisfied that proper confidentiality was being maintained in the few cases where prisoners were lodging complaints directly with the Governor or the MO. The number of complaints being raised was relatively high and a tracking system was in place for all forms submitted. We were satisfied that proper arrangements were in place for meetings of the Internal Complaints Committee.
10.19 We were told by staff that YOs tended to be litigious and pursued their complaints with vigour and determination, even when the complaints were not perceived to be well grounded. However, YOs to whom we spoke were dismissive of the procedure and claimed not to use it at all.
10.20 In his 1997 Annual Report, the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commissioner listed 12 cases accepted for investigation from YOs at Dumfries. Proportionately, this was significantly higher than either Polmont (1), with approximately four times the population, or Longriggend (3), where there is a slightly higher number of YOs.
|
|
|