< Previous | Contents | Next >

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland: Report for 1999-2000

3.11 Long Term Prisons (North and East)

HMP Glenochil (Formal inspection due October 2000, so no intermediate inspection in 2000 to provide updated general assessment: previous formal inspection February 1996)

In the report of our last intermediate inspection, we had stated that the layout of the adult prisoner part of Glenochil did not make for easy control. Clearly, that situation still prevailed but on the basis of this latest short visit, we were satisfied that staff appeared to be exercising control in a relaxed but organised manner. Additionally, we note that security upgrading work in 'D' Hall was continuing, whilst we were pleased to learn that plans had now been approved for the provision of a new staff facilities/visits complex.

As regards regime issues for the adult prisoners, we were disappointed to learn that there had been no real progress on the question of involving all prisoners in purposeful activities. Although over 70% of the population were involved in some form of activity, the whole issue of regime activities appeared to lack co-ordination. Of particular concern was the fact that there was no work available for those on protection, who numbered 36 on the day of our visit. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the review that was being undertaken by the recently appointed Regimes Manager will result in a more structured timetabling system, thereby maximising prisoner involvement in the full range of activities.

We were reassured to find that the improvements in health care previously noted were still very much in evidence and that the medical issues which were still outstanding from the time of our formal inspection were those on which national guidance was awaited. Separately, we noted that there had been two apparent suicides since the last intermediate inspection (the first for many years).

Of some concern was the fact that the local addictions strategy had lapsed. In an attempt to address this problem, the local Addiction Strategy Management Group had been re-formed and was being chaired by the Deputy Governor. A new Addictions Worker had also been employed. As part of the local review of the addiction strategy, it had been decided temporarily to suspend the Substance Abuse Programme to enable a re-examination of the modules that formed the Programme and which were now two years old. Prisoners would still have access to the SPS accredited Relapse Prevention Course, which would use the accommodation previously allocated to prisoners going through the Substance Abuse Programme. It was anticipated that the Substance Abuse Unit would re-open in April 1999 and as an interim measure, those prisoners who were waiting for a place on that Programme were being offered one-to-one counselling. When it re-opened, the Unit was likely to be located on the top flat of 'D' Hall, sharing that part of the accommodation with the Relapse Prevention Unit and a drug free section. We were also pleased to note the extension of the drug free area in 'C' Hall.

In recent years there has been a remarkable change in the establishment, from one where there was a very high incidence of violence to one where the atmosphere is generally much more stable and relaxed and where staff/prisoner relationships have improved greatly.

Another indication of general improvement can be obtained from the average number of prisoners reporting sick. This has fallen from 70 per day in December 1995 to an average of 9 per day in February 1999. This remarkable change reflects the improvement in medical screening procedures and the development of a successful multi-disciplinary approach to addressing drug misuse in particular. It also gives a clear indication of a safer and more appropriately controlled environment within which prisoners can be presented with a growing number of opportunities to make more positive use of their time in prison.

HMP Peterhead as at September 1999 (previous formal inspection September 1995)

The main issue that had been outstanding at the time of our last intermediate inspection of this establishment was the new staff facility/visits/CCTV/Gate complex. At the time of that last visit, we were told that work on this major project was scheduled to begin towards the end of 1999 and that it would take about two years to complete. We were somewhat disappointed to learn, therefore, that there had been a further delay, though we were assured that the building work would start before the end of the current financial year. Plans for the new complex had been drawn and a final meeting to discuss any alterations to the proposals was to be held at the end of the week of our visit. After that meeting, the Architect would be asked to produce the final version of the plans and the job would then be put out to tender. However, because of the total cost involved, tendering rules stated that this would have to be a pan-European exercise, which would inevitably lead to further delays but the current timescale envisaged that the actual building work would commence in March 2000. Plans had been drawn up for staff and visitor access to the establishment during the course of the construction work.

The cell refurbishment work that was ongoing at the time of our last visit had now been completed, with new furniture having been installed in each cell. We were pleased to note that the high standards of cleanliness and tidiness that had referred to in the report of our last visit were being maintained and given the limitations imposed by the age of the buildings, the accommodation was in good condition. The main problem was the fact that there was no integral sanitation and the gallery style layout of the Halls made it difficult to introduce a system of providing access to night sanitation facilities. In an attempt to provide a temporary solution, the prisoners had been provided with portable chemical toilets though these were extremely unpopular with the prisoners because they could only empty them once a week. (This local rule had been introduced because the sewage company had advised the prison that that was all that the local drainage system could cope with.)

We were advised, however, that as an alternative to spending vast sums of money to upgrade the existing buildings which would still have a limited life span, the long term solution to the problem was for new accommodation blocks to be built on the site of the existing playing field. We were advised by the Governor that such a proposal now had the approval of the SPS Board and present plans envisaged that a 'new' prison, with accommodation for around 350 prisoners in cells with integral sanitation, would be operational by around 2003. (We were subsequently advised that on present estimates, this would be at a cost of approximately £14.5 million.⁸) The existing accommodation blocks could then be demolished and the long-term plan envisaged the creation of new worksheds, either on the site of the present accommodation blocks or by a redevelopment of the existing worksheds. One of the consequences of this plan was that it was not intended to allocate further resources to continue with the project to provide external cladding on the existing accommodation blocks. This work had, however, been completed on 'C' Hall where the exterior had also been painted.

The local progression system, that had been introduced prior to our last visit, was still in operation. The top end of that system was an enhanced regime in 'E' Hall, which was on the site of the former Segregation Unit, but the problem still remained about further progression to a top end regime as part of preparation for release. We were advised that the Governor had drawn up plans under which the 'E' Hall regime could be granted national top end status from where prisoners could move to open conditions at HMP Noranside. Included in those plans was a proposal to create a supervised outside work party. Initial soundings on that part of the plan had been made with the Visiting Committee, the Local Authority and representatives of local community groups, all of whom had given a generally favourable response. The proposals had also been submitted to SPS HQ as part of the establishment's last three Strategic Plans but formal approval had not yet been received.

The STOP programme continued to operate in the new suite of facilities that had been opened shortly prior to our last visit. However, the original programme had been replaced and the establishment was now in the process of piloting a new accredited programme. During the course of our visit, the view was expressed by those staff responsible for the delivery of the proposed accredited programme that it lacked the flexibility of the former STOP programme. It was also their view that it did not fully meet the needs of a population that had a wide range of capabilities for absorbing the intensity of this type of work. They were concerned that their opinions were not being listened to and felt unable to influence the SPS approach, despite the pioneering work carried out at Peterhead with sex offenders. The Governor was aware of staff's feelings but assured us that through meaningful dialogue with the Regime Development Directorate of SPS HQ, staff would eventually appreciate the progress made in this area of work elsewhere and would adapt to delivering the proposed accredited programme.

There still remained a problem, however, about the number of prisoners who refused to participate in the STOP programme. Out of a total population of some 300, there were about 65 such prisoners, all of whom were located in 'B' Hall. Efforts continued to be made to try and encourage these prisoners to participate and some of them had undertaken other programmes, such as anger management or cognitive skills. This did not, however, resolve the problem of prisoners taking up spaces in Peterhead when there were sex offenders in other establishments who were willing to go through the STOP process. In an attempt to resolve this, some prisoners were occasionally moved to other establishments in order to create space for willing volunteers. Regrettably, this approach was perceived by some of those prisoners not participating in the programme as threatening and a bullying tactic to persuade them to get involved. Local management were of the view, however, that those requiring and willing to address their offending behaviour should be a priority and felt responsible for ensuring that they had access. Where a prisoner had been moved to another establishment, he would have the opportunity to return to Peterhead when a place became available.

As regards some general issues, drug taking and prisoner violence continued to be relatively minor problems within the establishment. As a result of a number of initiatives that had been introduced over the years, the cost per prisoner place had gradually been falling and now stood at around £25k. We were pleased to learn also that there were good industrial relations within the establishment and that these had been helped by the recent introduction of a framework document, which had been agreed between management and the unions.

There had been two recent deaths - one from natural causes and unusually, for Peterhead, one suicide.

< Previous | Contents | Next >