HMIP Inspection of Peterhead

In accordance with my terms of reference as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, I forward a report of a formal inspection carried out at HMP Peterhead between 27 - 31 January 2003.

Nine recommendations and a number of other observations are made.

signature

ANDREW R C McLELLAN
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

May 2003

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

1. INTRODUCTION

Preamble

1.1 Even the best work in prisons can be paralysed by bad conditions. The conditions in which some prisoners are held in Peterhead are among the worst in Scotland. Bunk beds are crammed into a tiny cell; so that two prisoners can be crammed into it. The floor space between the bed and the table is three feet wide and six feet long. In this space these two men, who may or may not have chosen to share with each other, have to pass fifteen hours a day at weekends and every night locked up. They can only move with great difficulty and awkwardness. In some cases the only toilet provision is a shared porta-potty. There is no electric power in the cell.

1.2 As a temporary arrangement for young men who are short term prisoners these conditions would be bad. But the circumstances of the prisoners in Peterhead make them even worse. The average age of prisoners in Peterhead is 46, so some of these prisoners are old men: one cell is shared by a man over 70 and a man over 80. More than half the prisoners in Peterhead have been diagnosed with chronic health problems. All of them are serving sentences of four years and over. The distance of the prison from Scotland's central belt makes visiting by families especially difficult. Nowhere else in Scotland are prisoners who are classified as long term kept in conditions like these except in temporary emergencies.

1.3 It appeared that there was an immediate background to these unacceptable conditions; that they were the direct result of the disturbances in Shotts prison in January 2003. After accommodation there had been damaged space had to be found to house prisoners in other prisons and the movement occurred immediately after these disturbances. Those whose arrival in Peterhead created the overcrowding were not those who were involved in the disturbance, but prisoners who had been moved out of another prison to make room for those from Shotts. When there are disturbances in prison, it is often other prisoners who have to pay the price.

1.4 But there may be another context as well. The prisoners who live in these dreadful conditions are all sex offenders. However horrific their crimes, sex offenders are generally recognised as the least violent of prisoners within prison surroundings, the prisoners least likely to cause trouble, (when levels of violence and disorder are compared with other groups of prisoners). The 31 prisoners who were transferred to Peterhead in January were prisoners of the most "compliant" group; their arrival caused overcrowding in a prison already full of the most "compliant" group. Prisoners and staff alike in Peterhead often say that they are treated unfairly because it is known that the prisoners are not likely to riot.

1.5 But, following the inspection, the Inspectorate was informed by SPS that the moves were not the direct or indirect result of the Shotts disturbances and that the policy decision to move these prisoners had effectively been taken by SPS as part of a wider programme of re-allocations and movements designed to enable the Prison Service to cope with the rapidly increasing Scottish prisoner population generally.

1.6 SPS have said that, while their decision was not ideal, and while it has been the custom and practice for many years to avoid doubling up LTPs in long term prisons, formal SPS policy was to double up LTPs if operationally necessary. They had decided to do so in this case to maximise the use of the prison estate.

1.7 This "doubling up" at Peterhead is not a temporary measure. SPS Governors and Managers Advice Notice 7A/03 has confirmed that all Long Term sex offenders will be held at Peterhead. It is reasonable to assume that the number of prisoners sharing cells at Peterhead is therefore set to increase by policy. Given the nature of the offences and the sexuality of those involved, it may be argued that this is one of the least appropriate populations to share accommodation. It is also the case that a number of those refusing to undertake programmes do so because they are appealing against conviction. It would be unacceptable to penalise individuals because they are seeking to establish their innocence. A further impact of the change in policy is that long term prisoners in Peterhead have even more restricted access to progression: this is discussed elsewhere in the report.

1.8 Prisoners and staff at Peterhead often say they are treated unfairly; they say it most of all when talking about investment. This is the only prison in Scotland to have no night sanitation and no electric power in cells (there are 10 cells which do have these facilities, but they are not in use); the prisoners here are the only long-term prisoners who have no access to these facilities. The staff amenities and the provision for visitors are very poor. Investment in Peterhead has been delayed because of the Estates Review. Further delay will be bought at a cost: not only the cost of the unacceptable conditions in which prisoners are living, but also the cost of the inability of the staff to carry out the work they want to do with prisoners, and their consequent frustration. Staff uncertainty about the long-term future of the prison continues to affect morale, (an issue which was raised by each staff group), although levels of staff sickness were still amongst the lowest in the SPS.

1.9 An inspection of Peterhead must do two things. It must see the prison like any other prison: so the usual concerns of safety, decency and preventing re-offending are given their full weight in the inspection. But it must also acknowledge the peculiar circumstances of the prison population, all of whom (except one) are serving long sentences after being convicted of sex offences. So particular attention must be paid to measures taken specifically with regard to sex offenders and opportunities provided for them to address their offending behaviour.

1.10 The STOP programme is the most well known feature of the preparation for release to be found at Peterhead: this is a programme for sex offenders. It is beyond the scope of this report to evaluate the effectiveness of the STOP programme; but it is appropriate to emphasise two points. One is about the availability of STOP: most prisoners in Peterhead are not doing the programme and are unlikely to do it. This is despite the fact that a considerable amount of effort is directed at motivating those who deny their offence to engage in addressing their offending behaviour. If the Scottish Prison Service believes that this is a powerful tool for helping sex offenders to address their offending behaviour, then more effort should be made to make participation more widely available within the prison. The other point is about those who do take part: comments from prisoners who have taken part and from staff who have worked with them do point to real change taking place as a result.

1.11 The report recognises that the STOP programme is part, and only part, of the whole attempt made by the prison to prepare people for release. But even in that larger context there are grounds for real concern. Other long-term prisoners as they draw near the end of their sentences have opportunities designed specifically to make re-entry into the community as well prepared as possible. Central to these opportunities, where possible, are home leaves and outside work placements. Because of public attitudes toward sex offenders these key factors in the preparation for release of long-term prisoners near the end of their sentences are not available to prisoners in Peterhead. The best that can be done for them is a short course within the prison (a course which is good within its limitations). As a result sex offenders, the very people whose release into the community causes most anxiety to the public, are those who are worst prepared for that release.

1.12 That must be a serious concern for the protection of the public. It is also a serious concern for prisoners themselves. Not only is it not possible for them to have the experience they need to re-enter the community after long sentences: but also they do not receive the privileges of Special Escorted Leaves and outside work placements which are available to other long term prisoners near the end of their sentences.

1.13 This report raises the question of unfair treatment of sex offenders. There are illustrations throughout which suggest unhappy answers to that question: bad accommodation, low investment and poor preparation for release. It would be wrong if sex offenders are treated unfairly either because of the supposition that this is what the public wants, public indifference or because of the reputation of this group of prisoners for not making trouble. This is hardly a popular cause: which makes it all the more important that the Scottish Prison Service makes every effort to treat sex offenders fairly.

Assessment

Safety

1.14 Peterhead was a safe prison with few assaults or incidents of self harm. Prisoners also felt safe which is a particularly important issue for this group. Levels of drug misuse were low and prisoner-staff relations were excellent and based on a learned culture of respect and trust. However, prisoners felt that access to health care and medication was restricted and this perception needs to be addressed. The use of porta potties, and more recently, the doubling up of some prisoners who have to share porta potties has increased the risk of cross infection, particularly blood borne infection. From a medical perspective, it is also unsatisfactory to lock up some elderly prisoners who are unable to work, for long periods of the day.

Decency

1.15 Much of the prison was clean and tidy and the food was reportedly the best in the SPS. Conditions in the cells were, however, unacceptable. It comes as nothing new to say that the degrading and unsafe practice of using and emptying porta potties should stop immediately. This report recognises the frustration at Peterhead at a time when it appears that simple and inexpensive changes could be made (plans have been put forward) which would provide the end to "slopping out" there - and still nothing happens. The prisoner population of Peterhead is traditionally a compliant one, likely to compromise in some areas to ensure safety for themselves and their visitors. However, there is a limit to what can be tolerated and that limit has now been reached. Conditions are amongst the worst in the SPS and no other Long Term prisoners are required to double up except in exceptional and short term circumstances.

1.16 There is still no access to night sanitation or electric power in cells and the arrival of thirty one prisoners from Glenochil, following recent disturbances elsewhere in the system has meant that some prisoners have had to 'double' up in 'B' Hall and 'B Annex'. The cells are very small in any case and the doubling up has made things worse.

1.17 Both prisoners and their families were satisfied with visiting arrangements and the safety which Peterhead offered. However, facilities in the visits waiting area and the visits room itself are unacceptable.

Contribution to Preventing Re-offending

1.18 A wide range of programmes were on offer including cognitive skills, anger management, sensible drinking, drugs awareness and pre release. But where the prison has been particularly strong is in the delivery of programmes targeted at sex offending behaviour (STOP). The inspection did not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the STOP programmes but did examine in detail access to them. At time of inspection 26 prisoners were taking part in a STOP programme. It appeared that 56 prisoners out of a total of 88 who were 'eligible' to attend in 2003-04 would not be provided with the opportunity to do so (within current resource levels). The KPI for STOP completions in 2002-03 was 24, 16 of which were core programme completions. The proportion of prisoners participating in, and completing, STOP programmes does not compare favourably with sex offender establishments in England and Wales. Prisoners were critical of an absence of written information about STOP, and there were lengthy waiting lists for other programmes. Prisoners who were taking part in STOP, or who had completed the programme, were however very positive about the experience.

1.19 Despite the fact that nearly 50% of the 'B' Hall population had participated in groupwork, they were still seen as 'non players' or 'refusers' in terms of STOP. The willingness of 'B' Hall prisoners to engage in other regime activities and the progress they have made should be recognised. For example, the Sex Offender Awareness Programme aimed at those who did not wish to participate in the STOP programmes was an example of good practice.

1.20 Overall Peterhead offers its population a good choice of groupwork programmes aimed at dealing with aspects of offending behaviour, although provision does not meet identified need, despite the fact that the KPI target was being met.

1.21 In the mainstream system, Long Term Prisoners who qualify would move to one of three "Top End" Halls. This opportunity was restricted in Peterhead. Long Term Prisoners in Top Ends also have the opportunity for access to the community as part of their preparation for release. If sex offenders cannot access this in any numbers via National Top Ends, then this needs to happen at Peterhead.

1.22 Education was well regarded and enjoyed a high take up rate, but the range of quality and constructive work available in the sheds was limited.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

2. ACCOMMODATION AND POPULATION

Background

2.1 HMP Peterhead is situated some 35 miles north of Aberdeen and approximately 145 from the central belt. It was built in 1888 near deep granite quarries from which its convicts laboured to extract rock for the construction of the nearby breakwater. Many of the original granite and concrete prison blocks are still standing and with the exception of a 10 cell unit formerly known as the Peterhead Unit there has been no significant capital investment throughout the estate. As one of the country's most northerly prisons, situated on the shore of the North Sea, it is exposed fully to the elements and subject to some extreme weather conditions.

The Estate

2.2 The March 2002 intermediate inspection of Peterhead included an assessment of the condition of the estate. It highlighted that the size of each cell was smaller than the current standard design and that a number of items did not comply with current accepted standards. These included the inadequacy of in-cell sanitation, electrical supply to cells, facilities for disabled prisoners, cell call systems, heating and cell windows. It concluded that:

the prison had not been updated to keep abreast of legislation or living standards;
the public utility services were overloaded and in need of strengthening; and
the site has ample space to make redevelopment an easier matter.

2.3 The position remains the same. Following the publication of the Estates Review and subsequent Consultation, the decision was taken that Peterhead would remain open and investment would include installing EPIC in each cell. We recommend that Electric Power in Cells is installed as a matter of urgency.

2.4 The more recent development of doubling up approximately 30 prisoners in cells suitable for one prisoner had compounded some of these problems. When a bunk bed and furniture has been installed the remaining floor space accounts for approximately 3.5 square metres. This is to allow two chairs, one or two porta potties and sufficient room for prisoners to circulate. Panes of glass had been removed from the cell windows in order to allow sufficient ventilation. Blocks of wood or locally improvised draught excluders were used to fill the gaps left by the missing windowpanes in order to reduce the impact of the elements particularly during the winter.

2.5 The budget for capital expenditure for 2002-03 is £40,000.

2.6 It was difficult to identify parts of the estate that could be described as 'high standard' and of the quality found elsewhere in the wider SPS Estate. Office accommodation; worksheds; the condition of the football pitch; and staff facilities were all of a poor standard. Despite this, it was encouraging to note that the establishment was extremely clean and tidy.

Accommodation

2.7 There were four traditional style accommodation blocks ('A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' Halls) and a former segregation unit that is now the progression Hall within the prison. What was formerly the Peterhead Unit was out of commission as a residential facility and was at time of inspection being considered for a number of options ranging from an enhanced facility for sex offenders to a national segregation facility.

2.8 A proposal to initiate a change to the night shift to allow access to sanitation during hours of lock-up had also been presented to the SPS and forms part of the prison's Business Improvement Plan. The plan was based on single cell occupancy. Doubling up has meant the postponement of this initiative for further Risk Assessment. If the arrangements are ready to put in place, there is no reason to delay implementation in 'A', 'C', 'D' and 'E' Halls which are single cell accommodation while the Risk Assessment of 'B' Hall is carried out.

2.9 Access to telephones was a problem within the Halls. There were only three telephones in 'B' Hall and the adjacent areas were noisy and lacked privacy. Doubling up of prisoners there has increased the number of prisoners who need to use these telephones.

2.10 The main area of concern was the conditions in 'B' Hall and 'B Annex'. Conditions here are unacceptable, with the situation being made worse by the doubling up of some prisoners. We recommend that the conditions in 'B' Hall and 'B Annex' are improved immediately through access to night sanitation and single cell accommodation for all prisoners. We also recommend that arrangements for access to proper sanitation are put in place throughout the prison.

B Hall Annex

CELL: B HALL ANNEX

Population

2.11 The design capacity of Peterhead Prison is 306. (This includes the 10-cell unit, which was temporarily out of use). Until recently there had also been a special holding facility for one life sentence prisoner. This has been discontinued and the prisoner is now integrated into the mainstream prison population. During the course of inspection, the population remained stable at 321 (8% overcrowding on the available accommodation). All prisoners are serving a sentence of 4 years or more. A breakdown of the sentences being served and the percentage of the overall population are as follows: -

4 years and less than 10 years	193	60%
10 years plus	68	21%
Life	60	19%

A breakdown of the supervision levels across the population was as follows:

High	146
Medium	51
Low	124

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

3. CUSTODY AND GOOD ORDER

Security

3.1 The recent security audit highlighted a number of deficiencies, although there was a consensus that the prisoner population was relatively compliant and did not present a major risk. Nor did their behaviour suggest that any member of staff was at risk of violence. However, staff radios had been introduced which included a personal alarm system.

3.2 The low level of substance abuse meant that the establishment did not have to contend with many of the side issues associated with this particular practice. Internal feuding, serious assaults, prisoners seeking protection from other prisoners and extortion were very uncommon. Similarly, prisoners' visitors were less likely to bring in drugs than in other establishments.

3.3 Contingency plans were constantly updated and were appropriate for the nature of the establishment. However, Control and Restraint training had fallen behind targets and greater emphasis requires to be placed upon this competence, as it is also a national resource.

3.4 Throughout the inspection there were no concerns around security or control. The absence of incidence of assault and drug misuse contributed to a feeling of safety and despite the deficiencies highlighted in the security audit this did not in itself make Peterhead an insecure prison. However given the nature of the offences of this population there was greater vigilance around those whom prisoners may have contact with, particularly children.

Violence

3.5 There had been one death in custody since the last intermediate inspection in March 2002 (subject to Fatal Accident Inquiry). There had been two incidents of self harm but no attempted suicides.

3.6 During this period there had been two minor assaults on staff and nine minor prisoner on prisoner assaults (four of these arising from one incident). There had been no serious assaults.

3.7 The Prisoner Survey confirmed that 90% of prisoners did not fear for their safety and the atmosphere was described as generally relaxed. Prisoners confirmed that they felt safer in Peterhead than they would elsewhere.

Discipline

3.8 The Disciplinary System appears to be fair and reasonable. Observation at an adjudication raised no issues. Documentation was complete, procedure appeared to be followed and prisoners were treated with respect. The process was explained to them at each stage. There had been 296 reports in the previous calendar year, which seemed to reflect both the population and the good staff/prisoner relationships.

Mandatory Drug Testing

3.9 Mandatory drug testing showed a 93% negative response, indicating that drug use was not a major issue. The 7% positive was almost exclusively cannabis or misused prescribed drugs. It will be interesting to note if the return of a group of prisoners from the mainstream, where drug misuse is more prevalent, influences this.

3.10 Peterhead adopts a strong response to MDT failure. Anyone testing positive is placed on a frequent test programme and must provide two consecutive negative tests before being removed from this. During this time the prisoner is not allowed to operate machinery and cannot participate in PE. Prisoners testing positive are also offered one-to-one counselling and there is a locally developed Drug Awareness Course which has run twice in the last year. Cranstoun Drug Services who are contracted to provide assessment and referral services to SPS do not operate in HMP Peterhead but are available from HMP Aberdeen if required. They have not been used since the service became available.

Alcohol

3.11 Alcohol is more of an issue than drugs at Peterhead since it is a factor in the offending behaviour of a significant number of prisoners. The SPS sensible Drinking Programme is now in place in the prison, with plans to run three courses per year. Alcoholics Anonymous meet weekly in the prison. As part of the Pre Release Course, one half day is spent on Alcohol Awareness.

Prisoner Complaints Procedure

3.12 Statistical returns for prisoner complaints for the period January 2002 to December 2002 total 624. This compares with 877 for the same period 2001. The majority of complaints for 2002 were headed under "others" and include items such as the absence of EPIC; the "bag and tag" (canteen) system; noise; and the absence of access to televisions. Within the statistical return there are a number of specific headings. From this property (50), food (49) and staff (52) were the dominant areas of complaint. This emphasis was similar in the statistical return for 2001. The number of complaints against orderly room decisions totalled 27. It was claimed that a number of complaints were dealt with at the lowest possible level and they are normally resolved to the satisfaction of most prisoners.

3.13 Access to documentation was mainly available on residential halls and there were few complaints with regards to the procedure. Observation of an internal Complaints Committee indicated that it was being conducted effectively and fairly. The Committee was however comprised entirely of uniformed staff. In order to enhance the independent nature of this part of the complaints procedure, a multi-discipline team approach involving such individuals as chaplains, nurses and social workers might make the process more transparent.

3.14 Overall, however, there were no concerns about the operation of the system or the treatment of prisoners within the system.

Human Resources

3.15 At the time of inspection the agreed staffing complement was 234. The actual number of staff in post was 218 with most of the shortfall occurring in the operations group. The recruitment and retention of staff have been issues for Peterhead for some time, and despite a considerable number of initiatives both at local and national level it has been difficult to attract people to the prison. To compensate for the shortfall in operations staff, SPS Headquarters have allowed the continuation of ex gratia payments for staff to work hours in excess of their agreed contract. Consequently the staff shortage has had little negative impact upon the regime, and opportunities available to prisoners have not been reduced.

3.16 Discussions between Management and Unions were ongoing to attempt to resolve the situation whereby prisoners could have access to sanitation during night shift periods. An issue was whether this was still achievable within the present complement, and without introducing additional costs.

Staff Training

3.17 A full time staff-training officer was in post and the staff training unit was located in what was formerly the Peterhead Unit. Plans to develop this area as a prisoner facility meant that the staff-training unit would be relocated into the main part of the prison. The focus of training was to ensure that staff were able to access core competencies and those on probation had the opportunity to attain their SVQs within the probationary period. However, there has been slippage in probationary portfolios being completed and assessed.

3.18 Similarly, those undertaking ACT training had fallen short of the target by some 50%. In order to address this problem additional training time was provided. All staff at Peterhead annually receive sex offender awareness training, which assists greatly in developing a holistic approach to the management of sex offenders. The planned programme for 2003 includes a wide range of staff training and awareness programmes. These include equal opportunities, drug awareness, managing difficult prisoners, anger management, competent witness training, sentence management, first aid, Control and Restraint and IT skills.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

4. PRISONER MANAGEMENT

Induction

4.1 On arrival prisoners are located in 'A' Hall, where there is a very well established two week, 14 module, Induction Programme. Prisoners will then normally spend from six months to one third of net sentence in 'A' Hall. They may move out on an accelerated basis in order to participate in a STOP Programme; or they may move to 'B' Hall if they indicate an unwillingness to participate in STOP. This has the effect of concentrating "refusers" in 'B' Hall. This is also where the returning "refusers" from Glenochil have been located, and the doubling up referred to throughout this report is confined to that Hall.

4.2 Part of the reason for keeping prisoners in 'A' Hall for such a lengthy period is to "assess their behaviour". However, it was not clear how that assessment took place, who did it, what criteria were used and how it was recorded. There was a criticism by prisoners who had recently been through Induction, that written material supporting the process was out of date and of poor quality. Prisoners were also critical that no written information about Programmes was issued.

4.3 An examination of a sample of Hall Records (as opposed to Sentence Management records) showed some excellent examples of contact being recorded. It was however disappointing to note clear evidence of slippage - for example one prisoner's record showed only one initial interview in a seven month period. This is against the Prison's self-assessment of SPS Operating Standard 5.2 where 100% compliance with: "Contacts recorded on Contact Sheets at least monthly" is clearly not being met.

4.4 The local Anti-Intimidation Strategy is covered during Induction, and the Strategy was being used, recorded and cross-referenced.

4.5 Each prisoner is allocated a Personal Officer and feedback was generally positive about this scheme. Good relationships existed between staff and prisoners - based on a learned culture of respect and trust. The Prisoner Survey also suggests a very positive prisoner/staff relationship.

Sentence Management

4.6 Peterhead operates the SPS Sentence Management process and at the time of the last inspection the arrangements were praised as being best practice. The system continues to be well managed, although we note that approximately 30 prisoners were still subject to the old system.

4.7 There were 30 trained Risk Needs Assessment Officers, which is impressive, with 190 Risk Needs Assessments having been carried out in the last calendar year. There was a local target of completing the initial Risk Needs Assessment (RNA) after five rather than the required six months.

4.8 Following both the initial RNA and the yearly Review, a Case Conference is held and an Action Plan completed. Here, as with the contact sheets, there was clear evidence of slippage. While Assessments were being done Repeat Action Plans were not. This is at odds with the Prison's own self-assessment against SPS Operating Standards 2.1 and 2.2 which require 100% compliance.

4.9 In the period October - December 2002, records showed the following:-

	Initial RNA	Repeat RNA	Action Plan	Repeat Action Plan
Expected to be Completed	26	27	62	48
Completed	26	26	25	27

Progression

4.10 The Halls have the following functions:

'A' Hall	Induction. Prisoners remain here for between six months to one third of net sentence.
'B' Hall	Prisoners who do not wish to participate in STOP.
'C' and 'D' Halls	Prisoners waiting for a place on, or participating in, STOP.
'E' Hall	15 places for prisoners who have completed STOP core, who are low supervision, drug free and waiting for a place in a top end.

4.11 'E' Hall is the progression Hall and has some enhancements - albeit minimal ones - Sky TV in a communal area and the use of computer games. Prisoners also have access to a washing machine and a microwave. They have keys to their own cells which they can lock and unlock during the day but not during night shift and patrol periods.

4.12 In the mainstream, LTPs who qualify would move to one of three National Top End Halls: Pentland Hall (HMP Edinburgh); Chrisswell Hall (HMP Greenock); and Friarton Hall (HMP Perth). At time of inspection the majority of prisoners in 'E' Hall were serving Life Sentences and their only realistic exit was Pentland Hall. With little movement out of Peterhead, 'E' Hall had little turnover, and it would seem that Long Term sex offenders were being disadvantaged since their access to Top End regimes is severely restricted.

4.13 Plans had been submitted to the Operations Director to develop up to 24 places in the former Peterhead Unit as a self contained Top End for sex offenders. However, recent disturbances elsewhere in the system had led the SPS to consider using the ten cell unit for potentially disruptive prisoners from the mainstream. By their compliance, sex offenders seemed to be disadvantaged.

4.14 LTPs in Top Ends have the opportunity for access to the community as part of their preparation for release. If sex offenders cannot realistically access this in any numbers via national Top End Halls, then logically this needs to happen at Peterhead.

4.15 The Governor is to be commended for recognising this and for the initial steps he has taken in engaging with the local community to test out this possible development. We recommend that Long Term sex offenders receive comparable treatment and conditions to other Long Term prisoners, and are not disadvantaged by being compliant.

Pre-release

4.16 Some prisoners do move on to Top Ends, but the majority are prepared for release at Peterhead. Three to four Pre-Release Courses are run per year, targeting those due to be released in the following three months or so. The course runs over two weeks. The first week is run by APEX, at the end of which those completing receive an SVQ level 1 in Job Seeking Skills. The Course is well thought-out, and draws on the skills of Programmes Staff.

4.17 Prisoners at Peterhead who have issues around their release find it hard to access services in their locality and it is rare for agencies to travel to the prison. Much reliance is placed on staff and on Social Work to facilitate appropriate contact. Up to eight weeks before release prisoners are transferred to their local prison. While the objective is to ease contact with families and agencies, prisoners face more issues around safety. This can also apply to families.

4.18 The prison has apparently given long-standing assurances to the local community that prisoners will not be released locally. A few are driven to Aberdeen Station and leave from there, but these are the exception. The development of a Top End might assist with this whole issue.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

5. HEALTH CARE

Introduction

5.1 During the March 2002 intermediate inspection the large number of elderly prisoners was highlighted as an area impacting on health care. The nature of the offences committed was also putting additional pressure on mental health facilities, and to some extent this is reflected in the provision of three psychiatrists.

5.3 The intermediate inspection also reported that prisoners were "seen promptly" and were "well treated" by medical staff. That view was challenged on this occasion by prisoners who said that there were difficulties in obtaining appropriate medication. They also claimed that it was difficult to access a doctor. Around 50 complaints about health care had been received from patients during the past year. Based on a sample of these complaints and discussions with staff and patients it appears that the common themes emerging from these complaints were again, 'not able to see the doctor,' 'not able to influence the nature of medical prescribing,' 'access to medicines' and 'failure of communications'. These complaints reflect the issues that were raised during group meetings with prisoners.

5.4 An internal health care standards audit was carried out in January 2003. This was made available to the inspection team.

Health Centre

Accommodation

5.5 Accommodation consists of a large consulting room which is used by doctors and nursing staff. A small office and pharmacy is attached. In the corridor opposite is a treatment room which is also used by the visiting physiotherapist, chiropodist and optician. There are two interview rooms, a small room with a computer used by the clinical manager, and a store room. In addition there are four cells to house prisoners whose medical condition requires them to be looked after separately from other prisoners for a period. There are two anti-ligature cells. As part of the cell area there is a common room for any prisoners housed in the health centre including, when appropriate, prisoners on 'ACT' (the SPS anti-suicide strategy). There is also a dental suite. Finally there is a small kitchen and the usual facilities including a toilet for the disabled. Access to the health centre includes a wheel chair ramp.

5.6 All the equipment was of a satisfactory standard including the emergency equipment which was regularly checked.

5.7 The health centre was clean, well maintained and a friendly and safe environment. Although there is an alarm system fitted to most rooms where prisoners are treated or interviewed, the treatment room and dental suite do not have any such personal safety measures. This should be addressed.

5.8 One of the cells is occasionally used as a waiting area. The cell is small and easily crowded and has internal sanitation which is on full display. Measures should be taken to cover this when the cell is being used as a waiting room.

5.9 One of the prisoners being held in the health centre accommodation at the time of inspection reported that he found difficulty getting in and out of bed. A bed which can be raised and lowered should be purchased for the health centre.

5.10 The health centre met the requirements of Health Care Standard 1.4 and this was in keeping with the results of the internal audit.

Staffing

5.11 The health centre is managed by a clinical nurse supervisor who is a registered general and mental health nurse. This role covers not only day to day nursing work but also has an element of time allocated for management of the Centre.

5.12 In addition to the clinical supervisor there are four registered nurse practitioners and one registered mental health nurse forming the nursing team. The health centre has one full time administrator who along with a practitioner nurse provides support for the implementation of the pharmacy contract. It is of note that the deployment of the registered mental health to mental health needs is often hindered by the demands of the day to day delivery of a general health service.

5.13 The team is well motivated and committed, and members appear to work well together. There is a good mix of skills to meet the variety of presenting health needs. There is also an impressive training schedule to ensure ongoing training and development of nurses. On the other hand, an additional Registered Nurse would allow a more meaningful time commitment to management issues and a more useful deployment of the Registered Mental Health Nurse.

On the wider issue of staffing within the prison, the medical officer expressed some concern about the provision of escorts of prisoners and believed staffing should reflect the special needs of the prison population. The internal audit also found that the prison fell short of Health Care Standard 2.2 in relation to hospital appointments being kept.

Medical Records and Health Care Information

5.14 The health care system is entirely dependent on manual methods for recording and monitoring purposes. This is in stark contrast to general practice in the community where virtually all general practitioners now have the facility to hold clinical information on computer. This is especially disappointing as the records had been summarised in preparation for transfer to GPASS (the NHS GP computing system) after the last inspection. It seems however, that there is no possibility of this happening in the near future. A clinical computer system should be introduced at the earliest opportunity if good quality preventive care is to be carried out in the prison.

5.15 A study of a 10% random sample of the medical records showed them to be extremely well maintained. The manual entries were complete and legible, and specialist reports filed in date order.

5.16 The accident report book for prisoners was also well maintained. There were a total of 32 entries for the preceding 12 months, all of which were for relatively minor injuries. Out of this total about one third were likely to be prisoner on prisoner assaults. This is an indicator of a relatively safe prison.

5.17 It was difficult to obtain certain organisational information, which meant that it was not easy to test the claim of prisoners that access to the medical officer was restricted by the nurses. This was an area of health care delivery not covered by the January 2003 audit. On the basis of a study of the appointments book, and discussions with individual prisoners, health care staff and the medical officer, it emerged that a prisoner who was assessed by nursing staff as requiring a medical consultation would normally be seen within five days. Staff declared that more urgent cases would be seen within one to three days, while emergencies were dealt with immediately. In light of a lack of effective information, the waiting time for consultations with the medical officer should be monitored.

5.18 It was also difficult to assess how the nursing triage was being carried out and how much pressure nursing staff were under to restrict access to the medical officer since there was not a surgery every morning. The medical officer was satisfied that the triage system was working effectively and the 10 to 12 patients seen during each consultation had been appropriately selected. The triage system should however be monitored because prisoners believe that the nursing team is an obstacle to their seeing the medical officer. The monitoring of waiting times and the triage system should also help to establish the appropriate level of medical officer input and highlight genuine problems.

Mental Health

5.19 During the last inspection there were concerns about the lack of a mental health trained nurse, other than the clinical manager. This has been addressed. There were also concerns about the absence of a Mental Health Team. This has not been addressed. Health Care Standard 3.3 presumes the existence of such a team.

5.20 The prison is served by three psychiatrists who hold weekly sessions. Two were interviewed, and both were content with the support they received from the medical officer and nursing team. Referrals could come from either and worked well. Their waiting list was not a problem in that all urgent cases were seen within a week and routine cases within four weeks. They did however note a lack of effective clinical psychology support. The other concern that they expressed was the fact that the contract for psychiatric services had not yet been finalised.

5.21 The psychiatric service in the prison met the requirements of Health Care Standard 3.2.

Pharmacy Arrangements

5.22 The pharmacy is a small room adjacent to the administrative assistant's office, and is accessible only from this office. It holds such items as dressings, needles, syringes and specimen bottles. It no longer stores treatments which the nurses were previously allowed to hand out based on their assessment of need. It also has a locked cabinet for controlled drugs. A pharmacist from the contract chemist visits the prison every fortnight to audit the kardexes and discuss any problems relating to prescribing.

5.23 As noted above, many prisoners were very vocal in their complaints about their medication. The basis for these complaints was threefold, namely the medication did not always arrive on time; it was not possible to be prescribed the analgesics which they considered to be effective; and spot checks were carried out and if they did not have the correct amount of tablets they were put on report and the privilege of "in possession" medication taken away. These are addressed below.

5.24 There have undoubtedly been problems in the late or non-arrival of some medication and this should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

5.25 While drugs of abuse do not appear to be a major problem in Peterhead there is likely to be a grey area of addiction problems. This manifests itself in the pressure being put on the medical officer, by prisoners, to prescribe opiate-based analgesics. The SPS policy is clear on the prescribing of such drugs and the formulary restricts their use to medical emergencies

5.26 Prisoners sign a contract relating to when they are allowed to have "in possession" medication. This clearly states among other things that they must stick to the required doses. For drugs which could cause abuse problems health care staff carry out the spot checks. If prisoners fail to adhere to this contract, particularly with such drugs as tramadol or psychotropic drugs then appropriate action is taken.

5.27 The recent decision not to allow nurses to give prisoners over the counter medication is a backward step and experienced and well-trained nursing staff should be considered competent to do this. Medication was also handed out publicly in the halls; a way should be found in the halls to change this practice. It would also be worthwhile considering putting a photograph of the prisoner on the Kardex to ensure the right person receives the right medication.

Other Health Care Professional Staff

5.28 The dentist attends one afternoon each week. He works in a well equipped surgery and brings his own dental nurse. The surgery and equipment have been checked by the local health board and conform with its cross-infection prevention policy. Emergencies are dealt with within 24 hours outside the sessional arrangement. Patients are provided with written information that the dental waiting time can be up to six weeks. In practice the longest waiting time was six weeks and a study of the records showed for most patients it was no longer than four weeks.

5.29 The physiotherapist attends for three sessions each month. She uses the treatment room which has a specialist physiotherapy couch as well as ultra sound equipment. The waiting list shows the maximum waiting time is three weeks which compares favourably with the community.

5.30 The optician attends every four weeks. The current waiting list shows the longest waiting time to be three weeks. The optician will extend his session to keep the waiting list under four weeks.

5.31 The chiropodist attends every two weeks. At the time of the inspection the longest waiting time was six weeks though a study of the appointment book showed it was more usually three weeks.

5.32 Overall, the provision of these health care services is very satisfactory.

Suicide Prevention

5.33 The Clinical Manager is the ACT Co-ordinator for the prison with the Deputy Governor acting as Chair of the ACT Group. Minutes indicated that that meetings had been held in January, March, April, August and October 2002. The minutes showed that an external audit of the operation of ACT had been carried out in January 2002. A report to the group at the meeting in March noted that ACT standards had been met. The minutes of the meetings indicated no serious concerns about the way ACT was operating. The minutes for June, July and August 2002, indicated that there were on average four prisoners on ACT each month. During the inspection there were two prisoners on ACT in the anti-ligature cells. A study of the ACT documentation found them to be properly completed with clearly set out care plans.

5.34 ACT is operating effectively in Peterhead and fully meets Health Care Standard 3.4.

Health Care Needs

5.35 Minor ailments are reported to the nurse on a daily basis, and these ailments are consistent with what would occur in the community. There were nine emergency hospital admissions from 1 July - 31 December 2002.

5.36 Statistical information collected by the health care administrator provides evidence that there is a high incidence of chronic disease. Evidence of chronic disease is further supported by the profile of prescribed medication for patients. There are 287 patients on medication. The content and nature of this prescribing demonstrates that most of the medicines are for the treatment of chronic disease. The prescribing patterns also demonstrate that some patients have multiple health problems.

5.37 There is evidence that on average 30 prisoners each month attend appointments at local hospitals for secondary health care. We have noted earlier (paragraph 5.23) that the internal audit found that the prison fell short of Health Care Standard 2.2 in relation to hospital appointments being kept.

5.38 The health needs of the elderly prison population are evident only when they present themselves to the health centre. Given the ageing prisoner population there is a need to develop more active services for the elderly that detect disease, failing vision, hearing loss and changes in mobility. This service should also seek to promote well being, socialisation and mental health. It is also unsatisfactory for the physical and mental well being of elderly prisoners who are unable to work, to lock them in their cells for much of the day.

5.39 There are prisoners who are registered disabled and each disability presents a unique challenge for the delivery of care. The needs of prisoners with learning difficulties should also be addressed.

Emergency Services

5.40 On being notified by Officers that a medical emergency has arisen, the first line of response is from the nurse on duty who will assess and implement appropriate emergency treatment and referral. The nursing service does not operate a 24hr service and emergencies arising between 22.30 hrs and 07.30 hrs Monday to Friday and between 17.30 hrs and 07.30 hrs on Saturday and Sunday will be responded to by the Officer on duty who has first aid skills. The Officer will contact the Ambulance Service or the general practitioner as appropriate.

5.41 The health centre has emergency equipment and nurses are trained to provide cardiac resuscitation. Should a mental health emergency arise there is an on-call service from a psychiatrist.

The Provision of Health Information

5.42 Throughout the health centre there is a good supply of health promotion leaflets, posters and literature. The issuing of information to prisoners about available health services with expected waiting times is welcomed.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

6. PROGRAMMES

Offending Behaviour Programmes

6.1 The population of Peterhead Prison was offered a wide range of group work programmes, including those which dealt either directly with sexual offending or with factors known to have contributed to the offending behaviour, such as drug or alcohol misuse. Whilst this part of the inspection was concerned mainly with the provision of STOP programmes, the following accredited, approved or locally developed programmes were also available at the time:-

Cognitive Skills Programme

Aimed at the thinking that governs offenders' behaviour. The course was SPS accredited and consisted of 36 sessions delivered over a 12 week period. The target was to run this programme six times a year.

Anger Management Programme

Designed to teach offenders how to deal appropriately with feelings of anger. Another SPS accredited course consisting of 12 sessions delivered over the same number of weeks. No KPI was set for 2002-03.

Relationship Skills Programme

Focused on the difficulties offenders had in forming and maintaining intimate relationships. This course had achieved approved activity status. It consisted of 14 sessions run over 14 weeks. The target was to deliver this programme three times a year.

Sensible Drinking Group

Designed to help offenders identify the impact alcohol use has had on their lives. A programme with approved activity status consisting of 20 sessions delivered over the same number of weeks. The target was to deliver this group three times a year.

Drugs Awareness Programme

Designed to help offenders identify the impact drug misuse has had on their lives. This programme consisted of 12 sessions run over a period of 12 weeks. This was a needs driven course.

MDT Drug Education Programme

Provided a follow-up to a positive MDT test. This consisted of six sessions delivered over six weeks and was needs driven.

Pre-Release Programme

Aimed to provide prisoners with information on current issues in society just prior to their release. This programme was delivered on a weekly basis over a period of six to eight weeks. This particular course was demand led.

STOP 2000

Aimed specifically at addressing sexual offending behaviour. The programme consisted of 85 sessions and was delivered over a period of between nine and 12 months. The target was to deliver three core programmes but due to reduced staffing resources only two were delivered. Consequently only 16 prisoners engaged rather than 24.

Adapted STOP Programme

Designed for offenders with an IQ of less than 80 in order to address their sexual offending behaviour. The adapted programme was 80 sessions in length and lasted between nine to twelve months. The target was to run one programme a year.

Extended STOP Programme

Designed for offenders who had completed STOP 2000 who still needed to address certain aspects of their sexual offending behaviour. The extended programme consisted of 80 sessions delivered over a period of nine to 12 months. The target was to run one group a year.

Sex offender Awareness Programme

Targeted at sex offenders who denied some aspect of their offence and who did not wish to attend STOP 2000. This programme aimed to cover the main aspects of STOP 2000 without requiring a description of the current offence. The programme consisted of 20 sessions delivered over 20 weeks. This programme had not been submitted for approval by SPS.

6.2 At time of inspection a team of eight uniformed staff delivered all of the programmes listed above. Their enthusiastic and highly motivated Programme Manager was also acting as a STOP programme facilitator along with two psychologists.

6.3 The uniformed staff provided a dedicated programme facilitator team and so did not have to return to uniformed officer duties once their group session had finished. This is an example of good practice. Prisoners did not have to deal with seeing their treatment facilitators in a prison officer role, which can sometimes be at odds with the therapeutic role. However, in this situation, it is necessary to ensure all prison officers, especially those on the Halls, are supportive of prisoners who are participating in treatment. In addition, officers must understand that prisoners' behaviour outside of treatment may be of interest to the programmes team. Regular staff awareness sessions must be continued to maintain the relationship between hall and programmes staff.

6.4 The facilities in which programmes were delivered were well resourced and appropriate to the task.

STOP Programmes

6.5 The Head of Psychology held the role of Treatment Manager for the STOP programmes. The Treatment Manager was responsible for overseeing the supervision and integrity of the STOP programmes. A number of the Treatment Manager's tasks, however, appeared to have become the responsibility of the Programmes Manager. This shift in responsibilities would not necessarily affect the quality of sex offender treatment in and of itself. However, having one person responsible for overseeing the functioning of the STOP programmes compromises the multi-disciplinary management required to ensure the effectiveness of treatment. This issue was exacerbated by the lack of input from the social work team. The statutory requirements of social work meant they were unable to act as facilitators for the STOP programmes. We recommend that a combination of prison officers, psychologists and social workers are used as STOP facilitators. They would be supported by a tri-partite management team representing the same three disciplines. The role of each manager should be clarified and their working together monitored. Effective communication between the three managers is very important.

6.6 Application had not been made for the accreditation of the adapted and extended STOP programmes. STOP 2000 had been running in Peterhead for nearly three years by the time of inspection. The adapted programme was introduced in 2001/02 and the extended programme in 2002/03. We recommend that the accreditation of the adapted and extended STOP programmes be sought immediately.

6.7 There had been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the STOP programmes since their introduction in 1993, either locally or nationally. The impression was that Psychological Services intended to evaluate the level of change on the psychometric measures from pre- to post-treatment for offenders who had been through the core programme. This is a necessary piece of work and may indicate which offenders are most likely to benefit from STOP in the short-term. Ultimately, however, these programmes are designed to reduce the risk of offenders committing further sexual offences following release from custody. We recommend an assessment of the long-term outcomes for prisoners who have been through STOP 2000. There are some inherent difficulties in evaluating the impact of treatment on the likelihood of reconviction. However, if the STOP programme is to be considered the most appropriate way of reducing risk within this population of offenders then evidence of its effectiveness must be collected.

6.8 The effective management and monitoring of sex offender treatment is necessary if prisoners are to benefit from this offence-focused intervention. The integrity of treatment through monitoring and evaluation must be maintained in order to maximise the reduction in risk prisoners pose to the public post-release.

6.9 It was also noted that there was an absence of written information about STOP for prisoners. However, during the inspection the main complaint received from prisoners in relation to programmes was how long they had to wait to get onto a STOP programme. Whilst exact figures were not available, it was reported that prisoners could wait between 18 months and four years from moving on to 'C' or 'D' Halls (the STOP programme halls) to getting a place on a STOP programme. The Programme Manager was aware that prisoners had to wait for prolonged periods of time, particularly those with especially long sentences. However, prisoners were not considered 'eligible' to attend a STOP programme until they were approaching their Parole Qualifying Date (PQD). Prisoners did not appear to be aware that this was the case.

6.10 Some prisoners were not even completing the programme in time for their PQD. Some were under the impression that they were less likely to be awarded parole if they had not completed the required STOP programme by their PQD. Whilst this did not appear to be the case, this perception was causing some concern among the prisoner population. We suggest that prisoners are given the opportunity to address their offending behaviour in a timely fashion.

6.11 The discrepancy between the number of prisoners 'eligible' and willing to attend a STOP programme and the actual provision was a very real problem at the time of the visit. It was said that, with current resources, 56 prisoners out of a total of 88 who were 'eligible' to attend a STOP programme in 2003/04 would not be provided with the opportunity to do so. This could reduce to a deficit of 48 if two extra staff, sanctioned by the Governor, were in place. According to the establishment, to engage more than 40 prisoners would require further resources and additional facilities. Peterhead's KPI for STOP completions in 2002/03 was 24, 16 of which were core programme completions. The proportion of prisoners participating in, and completing, STOP programmes does not compare favourably with sex offender establishments in England and Wales. For instance, HMP Usk, with a population of approximately 200 sex offenders, had a KPI of 61 of which 36 were core programme completions. Similarly, HMP Whatton with a population of 275, had a KPI of 140 of which 63 were core programme completions. Both these establishments had a smaller population than Peterhead and yet were able to provide prisoners with a greater opportunity to participate in sex offender treatment programmes. We recommend that Peterhead runs sufficient programmes to meet the identified needs of its population.

Deniers

6.12 'B' Hall was dedicated to the accommodation of prisoners who did not wish to engage in any of the STOP programmes. Prior to the arrival of the 31 transferred prisoners from Glenochil, 'B' Hall housed 72 prisoners. Of these 72 prisoners, 35 had engaged in some form of programmed groupwork in the previous 12 months. In fact, 13 of these were still engaged in programmes other than STOP at the time of the inspection.

6.13 Despite the fact that nearly 50% of the 'B' Hall population had participated in groupwork, prisoners on 'B' Hall were still seen as 'non-players'. Prisoners from 'B' Hall also reported feeling under pressure to attend a STOP programme. Prisoners should still be given every opportunity to engage in sex offender treatment, and also offered places on other relevant programmes. This was clearly the case at Peterhead, but the willingness of 'B' Hall prisoners to engage in other regime activities and the progress they have made must be recognised.

6.14 The Sex Offender Awareness Programme aimed at prisoners who did not wish to participate in the STOP programmes was an example of good practice. As with the STOP programmes, however, the intended outcome of this programme, particularly with offenders who deny any sexual offending, must be evaluated.

Summary

6.15 Peterhead offers its population a good choice of groupwork programmes aimed at dealing with aspects of their offending behaviour. However, the provision does not appear to meet the identified needs of the population, despite the fact that the KPI target was being met, meaning the number of prisoners on waiting lists for particular programmes was greater than the number going through programmes (see below).

Programme	No. waiting	Number through programmes 2002-03
Relationships	60	30
Anger management	22	8
Cognitive skills	47	35
Sensible drinking	32	24

6.16 In order for Peterhead to achieve its vision of providing 'a centre of excellence in working with sex offenders' it must provide a sufficient number of programme places for those who both require and wish to participate. However, preparing prisoners for release, particularly sex offenders, requires a whole regime approach of which STOP and other offending behaviour programmes are just a part.

6.17 A survey questionnaire was also issued to prisoners about their experience of, and thoughts on STOP and other programmes. The results are provided in the following section.

6.18 Prisoners' Views on STOP and Other Programmes

1. Introduction

This section records prisoner experience in relation to offending behaviour programmes as reported by a selection of prisoners randomly selected from each of the Halls in Peterhead at the time of inspection. Views were sought by way of a Questionnaire Survey issued to just over one quarter of prisoners.

2. Sample profile

Age group	n	%	Length of sentence	n	%
21-24	5	8	3-5 years	8	12
25-29	3	4	5.5-7 years	17	25
30-34	7	10	8-9 years	13	19
35-39	6	9	10-12 years	14	21
40-49	18	27	13-15 years	4	6
50-59	13	19	Life	11	16
60-69	9	13
70 or over	6	9
TOTAL	67	100	TOTAL	67	100
(not given)	(2)		(not given)	(2)
Hall	n	%	Time spent at Peterhead	n	%
A	13	20	1-5 months	10	15
B	12	19	8-12 months	10	15
B annexe	5	8	1-2 years	16	24
C	15	23	2-4 years	15	23
D	14	22	4-6 years	10	15
E	5	8	6-13.5 years	5	8
TOTAL	64	100	TOTAL	66	100
(not given)	(5)		(not given)	(3)
Been in prison before			Sentence left to serve
Yes	30	45	Up to 1 year	5	8
No	37	55	1-2 years	13	21
TOTAL	67	100	2-3 years	13	21
(not given)	(2)		3-5 years	15	25
			6 or more years	4	7
Deny offence?			life	11	18
Yes	25	38
No	41	62	TOTAL	61	100
TOTAL	66	100	(not given)	(8)
(not given)	(3)

Of the 85 questionnaires issued, 69 were returned completed. Despite the desire to obtain information from minority ethnic respondents, the question on ethnicity was very poorly answered: only two respondents indicating that they were from a minority ethnicity. One described his ethnic background as Sikh/Asian and the other as Muslim.

The table above shows the profile of the sample in terms of age, location, whether they had served a prison sentence before, whether they denied their offence, their length of sentence, time spent in Peterhead, and length of sentence remaining.

3. Stop Status

STOP status	n	%
Completed STOP	6	9
Currently on STOP	6	9
STOP programme terminated	5	7
On waiting list for STOP	13	19
Desire to do STOP, but not on waiting list	6	9
No desire to do STOP	29	42
Not doing STOP or on waiting list, but desire unclear	4	6
TOTAL	69	100

The table above categorises each respondent by their status with regard to the STOP programme. At the time of the survey, six respondents (9%) were currently on the programme and six had completed the programme. A further five (7%) had left the programme before completion, and 13 (19%) were on the waiting list. Twenty-nine respondents (42%) had no desire to do the STOP programme. Six (9%) said they wanted to attend the programme, but were not on the waiting list. One respondent had been on a STOP programme, but had left and was now on the waiting list to begin the programme again. This respondent is categorised as 'on waiting list'.

None of the 25 respondents who denied their offence had attended a STOP programme, but one was on the waiting list.

The table below shows the number of respondents from each Hall falling into each of the STOP categories.

STOP status by Hall

	A	B	B Annex	C	D	E
Completed STOP	-	-	-	1	2	3
Currently on STOP	-	-	-	3	3	-
STOP programme terminated	-	1	-	1	1	2
On waiting list for STOP	1	-	-	6	6	-
Desire to do STOP, but not on waiting list	1	3	-	-	2	-
No desire to do STOP	9	8	5	3	-	-
Not doing STOP or on waiting list, but desire unclear	2	-	-	1	-	-
TOTAL	13	12	5	15	14	5

The table below shows the STOP status of respondents by the time they have left to serve. For those doing life sentences, it was unknown how much of their sentence was left and their STOP status varied. For all other prisoners, it was clear that attendance at a STOP programme was associated with having a relatively short time left to serve. Excluding those with a life sentence, all those who were currently, or had been, on a STOP programme had less than two years left to serve.

STOP status by time left to serve

	Time left to serve (n)
	Up to 1 year	1-2 years	2-3 years	3-5 years	6 or more years	Life
Completed STOP	2	2	-	-	-	2
Currently on STOP	2	3	-	-	-	1
STOP programme terminated	-	2	-	-	-	3
On waiting list for STOP	-	1	5	4	-	2
Desire to do STOP, but not on waiting list	-	-	1	2	-	3
No desire to do STOP	-	5	6	9	4	-
Not doing STOP or on waiting list, but desire unclear	1	-	1	-	-	-
TOTAL	5	13	13	15	4	11

4. Awareness of STOP

How first heard of STOP availability in Peterhead	n	%
At other prison	13	25
Staff (unspecified)	11	21
Personal officer	6	12
Other prisoners	6	12
Lawyer	5	10
On arrival/induction (source unspecified)	5	10
Stop facilitators/group workers	1	2
Psychologist	1	2
Notice board	1	2
TOTAL	52	100

All respondents had heard of the STOP programme and all but four knew that it was available in Peterhead. Of these four, one had a desire to undertake the programme but was not on the waiting list, and the other three were not interested in the programme.

Fifty-two respondents stated how they first heard about the availability of STOP in Peterhead. The sources of information are shown in the table below. A quarter had heard about Peterhead's STOP programme at another prison before coming to Peterhead. Twelve percent first heard about the programme through other prisoners.

5. STOP as Part of a Sentence Plan

STOP Status	STOP is part of sentence plan	Sent to Peterhead to do STOP
	n	n
Completed STOP	5	2
Currently on STOP	6	1
Terminated STOP	4	1
On waiting list	13	5
Desire to do STOP, but not on waiting list	4	2
Not interested in STOP	0	2
Not on STOP or waiting list, desire unclear	1	0
ALL	33	13

Thirty-three respondents (48%) said that attending a STOP programme was part of their sentence plan. Five of those who had STOP as part of their sentence plan were not attending the programme nor were on a waiting list to do so.

Thirteen respondents (19%) said that they had been sent to Peterhead Prison to do the STOP programme. However, two of these had no desire to undertake the programme, and a further two had not been put on a waiting list despite their desire to be on the list.

6. Getting onto a STOP Programme

Who asked you if you want to attend STOP?	n	%
Personal officer	27	46
Staff (unspecified)	15	25
STOP co-ordinator/group worker	15	25
Psychologist	1	2
Social worker	1	2
TOTAL	59	100

The majority of those who answered (94%) said that they had been asked if they wanted to attend a STOP programme since being in Peterhead. Of the four prisoners who said they had not been asked, one was currently on the programme anyway, two wanted to do the programme and one did not. Personal officers were the most likely to invite interest in the programme.

Nearly half (48%) of those who had been asked if they wanted to attend STOP had been asked within a month of arrival at Peterhead, and all of those serving sentences of less than five years had been asked within three months.

When asked if wanted to attend STOP?	Length of Sentence			All
	3-5 years	5.5-9 years	10+ years	All
	n	n	n	n	%
Less than 1 month	6	9	13	28	48
1-3 months	1	8	1	12	21
4-7 months	-	5	5	10	17
1-2 years	-	3	1	4	7
3-5 years	-	1	3	4	7

Three quarters of respondents said that they knew how to get onto a STOP programme. Of the 16 respondents who said that they did not, 10 had no interest in going on STOP, three were on a waiting list, two wanted to do STOP but were not on the waiting list, and one was not doing STOP, but it was unclear whether or not he wanted to. Nearly all those who said they knew how to get onto the programme said this was done by asking their personal officer.

7. Attending STOP programmes

How long after did STOP programme begin?	Length of Sentence			All
	3-5 years	5.5-9 years	10+ years	All
	n	n	n	n	%
2-12 months	2	1	3	6	35
13-24 months	1	1	1	3	18
30-42 months	-	3	3	6	35
60-66 months	-	-	2	2	12

Around half of STOP programmes began within two years of arrival at Peterhead. The table below shows the length of time between arrival and beginning STOP for different lengths of sentence.

8. Terminating STOP programmes

Six respondents had been asked to leave a STOP programme at Peterhead. The reasons given were:

I wasn't ready for it
Long story
Minimising
My version differs from theirs. I was unemotional and superficial
Not giving enough information and using threatening behaviour
Nothing to work on (I was hiding feelings etc.).

Only one respondent said that he had chosen to leave a STOP programme, and he had also said that he had been asked to leave for the same reason ('nothing to work on'), suggesting that the decision to terminate the programme was mutual.

9. Waiting Lists

Thirteen respondents said they were currently on the waiting list for STOP. Of the 11 who said how long they had been on the waiting list, four said less than a year, three said one year, three said 4-5 years and one said six years. All those who had been waiting for more than a year were serving long sentences (10 years or more).

Five said that they had been told when their group was likely to start, and eight said that they had not. Of those who had an indication of when it would start, four said February or March 2003 and the other said 'some time in 2003'.

A third of respondents (n=22) were on the waiting list for other programmes. These programmes were (number on waiting list for each in brackets):

Relationships (14)
Cognitive skills (9)
Alcohol/alcohol awareness (5)
Anger management (4)
Domestic violence (1)
Drugs (1)
SOAP (1)

10. Refusing to Attend STOP

Twenty-three respondents (34%) had refused to attend a STOP programme. The most common reason for refusing to attend the programme was that the respondent was appealing against their conviction or protesting their innocence. The reasons given are reproduced below:

because of all the lies
because I am not guilty and I am an appellant
I was found guilty by application of the Moorov Doctrine and the collusion of principal accusers
denial
on legal advice - awaiting appeal
will only consider one to one basis
a lot of rubbish
(hospitals, psychologists etc) state that I suffer from psychotic tendencies and that I am unsuitable
appellant against conviction
I am innocent
I do not want to do it here then do it when released
because I don't admit my crime
not doing STOP
I have a 3 1/2 year old girl and they wouldn't segregate me from child offenders on the STOP
don't feel psychologically sound enough to participate
I think I don't have to
medical reasons
because I am appealing. Am innocent
not suitable
I have no offence to address
because it would make me guilty.

Ten respondents said that someone had spoken to them since their refusal (usually their personal officer), but a further 10 said that no-one had. Fourteen of those who had refused to do the STOP programme said that someone had spoken to them about other programmes/activities, but seven said that this had not happened. The most common programme mentioned was cognitive skills.

11. Other Programmes

Just under half (n=31, 46%) of respondents said that they had attended other programmes at Peterhead. Other programmes undertaken were (numbers of respondents in brackets):

Cognitive skills (22)
Anger management (16)
Relationships (10)
Alcohol awareness (7)
Computer programme (1)
English (1)
'R/R' (1)
SOAP (1)
STOP maintenance (1)
Communication (1)
Gym (1)
Drug awareness (1)
Maths (1)
Domestic violence (1)
Men, women and society (1)

12. Support for STOP Participation

Respondents were asked whether they felt staff in Peterhead were supportive of people who were attending the STOP programme. Many felt unable to comment, particularly those who had not taken part in the programme. Of the 38 respondents who answered, 25 (66%) said that staff were supportive and 13 (34%) said they were not. The most common explanation for saying that staff were not supportive was that they were not interested or did not care. Other comments were that staff bullied prisoners into doing STOP, that they asked participants to leave the programme, and that there was no support or sensitivity at the end of sessions.

Forty-three respondents felt able to say whether other prisoners were supportive of people who were attending the STOP programme. Of these, 23 (54%) said they were, and 20 (46%) said they were not. Key comments made to support the assertion that other prisoners were not supportive were that other prisoners had no interest or did not care about the programme, other prisoners were in denial and that there was a resentment or distrust about the way the programme was conducted.

13. Prior Experience of STOP

Three respondents had attended a STOP programme before coming to Peterhead (at Edinburgh, Littlehey and Polmont prisons).

Only four respondents had attended any other programmes before coming to Peterhead.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

7. CARE AND OPPORTUNITIES

Education

7.1 The Learning Centre is located at the heart of the prison in a linking corridor between two Residential Halls. This is significant in that it enables the Learning Centre to contribute to the Governor's vision of a more integrated approach to prison activities. The accommodation comprises three rooms and a staff base/office.

7.2 The rooms are separated by movable partitions which provide considerable flexibility. One of the rooms is equipped with eight computer systems, and the other two are 'general purpose' rooms. The prison library is adjacent to the Learning Centre providing the opportunity for close links.

7.3 Resources to support the curriculum were adequate in terms of hardware, software and books which can be accessed via the Learning Centre, the prison library and the college library.

7.4 The staffing complement of the Learning Centre was 3.5 FTE including a full-time manager. The staffing matches the curriculum which is well balanced, comprising core elements such as Communication, Numeracy and a range IT subjects, and some interesting optional courses such as German, Art, Calligraphy and Business Studies including Enterprise. Encouraging developments include effective links with Vocational Training in the SVQ courses in Amenity Horticulture and Carpentry/Joinery. The Learning Centre is well managed with very good support from Aberdeen College, the Contract provider, and from a dedicated Prison Education Officer. The education provided to the prisoners who attend the Learning Centre is of a high quality. This is reflected in the high regard in which education is held by both prisoners and staff, and by the fact that almost 50% of prisoners attend education on a voluntary basis and that all classes are well subscribed.

7.5 Some interesting features of the education provided at the Learning Centre include -

a course leading to the award of the European Computer Driving Licence;
a very popular class in German;
an impressive course in Enterprise leading to an HNC award, involving prisoners in preparing a Business Plan for their own Company;
two prisoners are successfully pursuing courses leading to Open University degrees, one in Mathematics and one in Music;
the Learning Centre makes very good educational provision for prisoners of a wide range of ability; and
this range of ability is often found in the one class where flexible methods are used to enable prisoners to work effectively at their own level.

7.6 Two important issues were identified during the period of the inspection. Firstly, a problem had arisen with the Scottish Qualifications Authority over the accreditation of the practical elements of SVQ courses in Amenity Horticulture and Carpentry/Joinery. This is preventing the participants attaining Level 3. It is important that this matter is resolved to enable the participants to attain the highest appropriate level of attainment in a national award. An important principle is at stake as it has been one of the attractions of prison education in recent years, that awards could be attained which had national currency. Secondly, the present education contract comes to an end at the end of March. At the time of inspection, no decision had been taken. This had created problems for forward planning as well as uncertainty for education staff.

7.7 In conclusion, the assessment of the quality of education at the Learning Centre at Peterhead prison is a very positive one. The Centre is well managed and well supported by Aberdeen College and prison management. The teaching staff are experienced and are assisted by a very efficient prison education officer and two competent passmen. The curriculum is well-balanced with most courses leading to national certification. Many of these courses provide prisoners with interesting opportunities to prepare themselves for release. One possible area for further development is to explore other opportunities for linking education into other prison activities.

Library

7.8 The prison library is located in a room adjacent to the Learning Centre. It is very well managed by the prison officer who is devoted full-time to education. The books mainly reflect the recreational interests of the prisoners. One thousand five hundred books have been donated to the prison and 1200 are loaned and changed on a monthly basis by the Aberdeenshire Council Library Service. This provides the prison with a regular supply of good quality books. An efficient rota system provides reasonable access to the library for all prisoners. This service is popular among prisoners. More advantage should be made of the close proximity of the Library to the Learning Centre.

7.9 Consideration should be given to developing the Library into a multi-media resource centre which, among other things, could provide support for learning in the Learning Centre. The Library is well resourced with an annual budget of £4,000. Prison management should review the 'per capita' basis of the contract with the Local Council Library Service.

Employment

7.10 At the time of inspection the population stood at 321. There were approximately 270 available workspaces, which was sufficient to provide opportunities for all prisoners considered fit for work. The main worksheds provided employment in:

Textiles
Ropes Making
VT Joinery
Assembly Joiners
General Crafts
VT Gardening

7.11 The remaining work opportunities were made up from the laundry, cooks and a wide assortment of pass jobs. Prisoners apply to work in a particular party but there are criteria such as supervision levels, location and progress in the STOP programme that determine suitability for some of the more attractive jobs

7.12 Textiles was the largest work party and could provide work for up to 50 prisoners. However, on most days there were only around 30 prisoners employed there. The reasons given for this were nature of the work and the level of wages. Those who did here work there were actively engaged in a textile contract provided by SPS headquarters. There did not appear to be any difficulty in securing contracts and it was regarded as an extremely reliable source of employment (although its long-term future was uncertain). The vocational training opportunities afforded by the joiners and gardens were extremely popular and well managed. There was however concern expressed about the future of vocational training in prisons generally.

7.13 The craft shop produced many examples of high quality work. The prisoners who worked there were self-motivated and enjoyed much of the work that they were involved in. The joiner's assembly and ropes party were less skilled with the latter in particular utilised as a pool party for those unfit for more manual or skilled work. During a visit to this particular shed many prisoners were simply sitting around mostly occupying themselves playing cards or pacing up and down the work place. The remainder of the work parties such as laundry, catering and a wide variety of cleaning jobs were unskilled and unlike other establishments there was no opportunity to enhance prospects of employment with the provision of an industrial cleaning party.

7.14 With the exception of the two vocational training work parties, which accounted for a very small number of work opportunities, the large majority of work was designed and limited to keeping prisoners occupied. Despite the best efforts of local management it is difficult to see how employment opportunities afforded that the prison sufficiently prepare an individual for release and satisfy the SPS's inclusion agenda. Unlike other long-term prisons there was no opportunity for prisoners to access work parties that offered enhanced wages nor any opportunity to work outwith the establishment as part of a supervised work party.

7.15 As part of the overall sentence management process, particularly in preparing prisoners for release, employability is an important aspect. There was little evidence that employment opportunities at Peterhead would enhance the majority of prisoner's prospects of remaining self-sufficient after liberation. Given the difficulties associated with sex offenders in terms of relocation it was disappointing to note that there were no plans to develop more meaningful work opportunities within the prison. It was also a concern to note that many elderly prisoners had been confined to their cells due to their unsuitability for the work opportunities that were presently being provided. Some over the age of 65 agreed to "retire" voluntarily. Others who were less physically fit but wished to engage in some form of employment had little opportunity from the range of work placements provided .

Visits

7.16 Visiting times were as follows:

Wednesday	14.00	- 16.00
	18.45 (for 19.00)	- 20.45
Friday	18.45 (for 19.00)	- 20.45
Saturday	14.00	- 16.00
Sunday	14.00	- 16.00

7.17 The waiting area was small and unable to seat comfortably more than a handful of visitors. Indeed, the prison often hires a coach at weekends which sits outside the main gate and acted as a temporary waiting room, particularly during bad weather. Visitors arriving at the prison often after very long journeys had no access to toilets, baby changing facilities etc., while waiting in the coach. The visits room itself was rather depressing. It was not well furnished, there were only a limited number of toys for children and there was no facility for providing hot food. Both of these are unacceptable and we recommend again that the proposed Gate/Visits complex should be progressed as a matter of urgency.

Waiting Room Bus

"WAITING ROOM" BUS

7.18 Most prisoners spoken to were satisfied with the visiting arrangements - particularly the length of the visits. While distance from the Central Belt caused some inconvenience they were willing to trade this off for the safety and sense of security which the Peterhead environment offered. A SACRO bus from Glasgow's Buchanan Street Station ran to the Prison every first and third Sunday of the month.

7.19 A small number of visitors spoken to, (from the local area), were extremely satisfied with the arrangements and considered them to be better than elsewhere in the system - in their particular case. They did make the interesting comment that visits could be too long, particularly when other family requirements had to be met.

7.20 The Family Contact Development Officer role was described as being slightly different from elsewhere in the system. It appeared to be an internal point of reference for prisoners and staff, with the personal officer dealing with many of the day to day family issues. Given the nature of the prisoner population, around 45 - 50% did not receive any visits.

Physical Education

7.21 Two qualified full time physical education instructors staffed the Physical Education Department. They worked Monday to Friday providing programmes from 8.30 in the morning until 8.30 in the evening. At weekends, sports and games officers were used to supervise PE sessions. However, release of these staff was not always guaranteed due to demands from the residential areas in which they worked. They were also not competent to supervise prisoners in the use of weights

7.22 The programme provided a wide range of activities, which took cognisance of the varied age of the population, and included activities for those elderly prisoners who were unable to engage in more strenuous aspects of physical education. The programme focused on healthy lifestyles and the PTIs were qualified in sports therapy, which was of considerable benefit to those with minor injuries or joint problems. Prisoner and staff uptake of a well person clinic was also encouraging. Overall, the average allowance for PT totalled 8.5 hours per week. Like many other parts of the estate the gymnasium was in need of upgrading. Despite the best efforts of the local estates department the roof leaked and consequently water on the floor caused the surface to become disturbed. Storage space for equipment was limited and time spent rearranging equipment meant that less time was given to PE. The condition of the outside football pitch restricted many activities particularly during winter where it was not possible to use the surface due to the risk of injury. It also meant that a previous arrangement for external football teams to come and play within the prison had to be abandoned.

7.23 Despite the inadequacies of the facilities it was encouraging to note that a varied and structured programme for PE was being provided. Staff were not discouraged from developing new and innovative ways of providing physical exercise despite many of the shortcomings with the facilities, and prisoners voiced no complaints about provision.

Psychology

7.24 At time of inspection the Psychology Department was staffed by one Senior, three Project Team Leaders, two Psychologists and two Psychology Technicians. They were involved principally in Sentence Management; Programmes (particularly STOP and Anger Management); assessment and treatment for Risk Management; and Mental Health referrals within the prison. They were also involved in allocated national work including training facilitators in STOP.

7.25 The Senior Psychologist was the Treatment Manager for all of the STOP programmes, and the Department also supervised delivery of the programmes. This included monitoring group sessions, and providing support and feedback to facilitators. Two psychologists were involved in the practical delivery of the STOP programmes, assessment of suitability for STOP and psychometric testing and interviewing.

Social Work

7.26 The Social Work Unit was staffed by one Senior and four Social Workers (although one was on long term sick leave at time of inspection). To help ease this staffing situation the Unit was committed to taking on a student, which is to be welcomed.

7.27 Each prisoner was allocated a specific Social Worker, and traditionally all prisoners were seen within three days of arrival (subject to health and security constraints), when immediate issues such as risk, finance and family were addressed. However, the three day interview approach had not been applied to the 31 prisoners recently arrived from Glenochil. While the constraints on the team are appreciated, and the requirement to prioritise statutory duties necessary, ways should be examined of ensuring all prisoners are offered this service.

7.28 Each Social Worker had a caseload of around seventy five prisoners, and statutory work comprised the bulk of their work. The Social Workers were not involved in any programmes except the pre release course, and STOP (in the role of throughcare manager). There was also a waiting list for one-to-one work.

7.29 Information relating to implementation of ACT was not routinely and quickly relayed to the Social Work Unit. This needs to be addressed.

7.30 In summary, the Social Work Unit was meeting its statutory requirements and while Social Workers would like to be more involved in other issues, resource and time constraints prevented this.

Chaplaincy

7.31 There was an agreed complement of four chaplains at Peterhead but for some time there had been no Episcopal chaplain due to the difficulties that the Scottish Episcopal Church has in obtaining the services of a suitable priest. As there were few prisoners who claimed to be Episcopalian this presented no great problem at the time. The complement was completed with one Roman Catholic and two Church of Scotland chaplains. However, following the death of one of the Church of Scotland chaplains in May 2002 this position has remained vacant. The contract for the hours for the remaining two chaplains were 9.5 hours for the Roman Catholic priest and eight hours for the Church of Scotland minister. That said however it should be noted that the Church of Scotland minister had retired from his parish and often exceeded his contribution by 100%. The Chaplaincy was complemented by a number of lay people particularly the Prison Fellowship who visited on two Thursday evenings per month. The burden however on the existing chaplains to provide a service which should be supplied by four chaplains meant that there were limitations to other activities within the prison in which they could engage. A strong feature of the chaplaincy was its ecumenical approach. There were a small number of Muslims in the prison and the chaplaincy ensured that all their requirements with regard to religious observance were provided.

7.32 Religious services for Roman Catholics were provided on a Friday afternoon and those from the Church of Scotland on a Sunday. Both were well attended and there were no complaints regarding access or opportunities to practice religion.

7.33 The physical resources provided in the chaplaincy were regarded as adequate although there were minor concerns around security of personal belongings within the area used for services. It was however disappointing to note that both chaplains felt marginalised and not an integral part of the overall management team of Peterhead. They did not participate in case conferences such as ACT nor engage in other aspects of prisoner management outwith their specific role as chaplains. With such a low turnover of prisoners in Peterhead they believed that their input could be greater given the knowledge and access they have to prisoners.

Lifer Liaison

7.34 The Lifer Liaison Officer saw all life sentence prisoners at least once a year as part of a structured case conference. Lifer Liaison activities ranged from programmes to all aspects of preparation for appearances before the Parole Board. There was a view that a number of the younger prisoners serving life sentences were unable to accept the reality of their situation until they had completed a considerable part of their sentence. There was also a reluctance by some to engage in offence specific programmes, resulting in less favourable outcomes an Tribunals. Those who do participate are subject to ongoing assessment of risk. There remains a reluctance to move to normal circulation at national top ends due to fear of physical intimidation. For those who do progress there is no support at either top ends or open establishments.

Race Relations

7.35 A Race Relations Officer (RRO) and Deputy were in place, together with a Race Relations Committee comprising the RRO, Deputy RRO and six uniformed members of staff. The Committee aimed to meet quarterly but that had not been happening in practice. It had also planned to meet with prisoners after each Committee meeting but again that had not been happening. Regular Committee meetings and follow ups with prisoners should be reinstated.

7.36 Sixteen prisoners had been identified or had identified themselves as having a minority ethnic background and all had identified specific needs during induction. Language had not proved a problem in the past and no interpreters had been required to date.

7.37 Five complaints had warranted formal investigation in the last year with a number of others being made informally. The complaints documentation indicated that each complaint had been dealt with fairly and appropriately.

Health and Safety

7.38 A health and safety inspection report had been prepared on the establishment by the SPS Health and Safety Adviser and SPS Fire Safety Adviser in July 2002. While this was not a full inspection of the whole establishment it provided an indication of the level of compliance to previous audits. In general terms, the majority of areas were compliant, although it was noted that a hazard action plan was not in place. They had also noted that there was a good general awareness of health and safety among staff as most had attended some kind of health and safety training. The minutes of the Health and Safety Committee meeting on the 21 ^st of November 2002 advised that all recommendations detailed within the report had been actioned.

7.39 Accident reporting documentation was completed to a satisfactory standard. The record of accidents for the year February 2002-03 totalled 32 and indicated that they were mainly of a minor nature and did not reflect any concerns about the provision of a healthy and safe environment for all who worked in the prison.

7.40 There did however remain an issue around the quality of the accommodation within the residential blocks where ventilation was an issue and was difficult to resolve given the need for considerable investment. It was not possible to locate safe systems of work for the emptying of porta potties and the use of their chemicals. Instructions should be readily available in each cell so that every prisoner understands the proper procedures.

Listeners

7.41 The Listener Scheme was launched in March 2001, and of ten prisoners originally recruited and trained, six were in place at time of inspection. They had been dealing with approximately six to seven contacts a month and prisoners could self refer or be referred by a member of staff or another prisoner. The Listeners impressed as a dedicated and enthusiastic Group. They did however express concern at arrangements during lock up, and felt that 24 hour cover could usefully be provided. Accommodation and meeting rooms were limited, and the suggestion was made to convert cellular accommodation above the Health Centre for such a facility.

7.42 The Listener Scheme is well organised by a dedicated and enthusiastic member of staff, and that Listeners themselves are concerned to do a good job and were proud of their work.

Visiting Committee

7.43 The three members of the Visiting Committee interviewed had considerable experience of Peterhead and were familiar with the major issues impacting upon the prison.

7.44 Many of the general comments were favourable towards the manner in which staff and prisoners worked together at Peterhead. They did not at any time detect a sense of being unsafe and the co-operation afforded them was evident in all areas of the prison and from the wide range of staff and prisoners with whom they had contact. Access to any part of the prison or information has never been an issue and staff presented themselves as being most helpful.

7.45 Despite the uncertainty around the long-term future of the establishment and the unsuitability of much of the accommodation they believed that most areas were extremely clean and well maintained. Prisoners were provided with appropriate clothing and laundry and kit changes were satisfactory. There were no problems with food and in general very few complaints regarding any of the issues mentioned above. The main nature of complaints presented to the Visiting Committee were around the fact that there were few opportunities for progression both within Peterhead and to top end facilities elsewhere in the Prison Service. Those who had been through the STOP programme felt that a bottleneck had been reached whereby the limited number of opportunities to move on were restricted by demand and fear for their personal safety. Other complaints came mainly from those prisoners who did not want to be in Peterhead in the first place. There were no complaints regarding physical or mental abuse and in general terms there never has been a climate of hostility. They indicated that there had been only four requests to see the Visiting Committee in the last four years.

7.46 They believed that access to the local community might be possible for prisoner work parties provide they were supervised by staff.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

8. SERVICES

Catering

8.1 The kitchen employed a total of 21 prisoners, although around 15 would be on duty on any one day. All had passed the Elementary Food Hygiene Course, and SVQ qualifications were available in kitchen portering and food preparation and cooking. A staff manager and four staff (two on any one day) were in charge of the catering operation.

8.2 The menu operated on an eight week cycle (previously nine), which offered good choice and increased variety. A healthy option was available at each meal time and special dietary requirements were being met. Members of the Inspectorate Team sampled the food at the point of cooking and found it to be of a very high quality.

8.3 Food was transported to the Halls by way of heated trolleys and the trolleys were taken to the Halls as quickly as possible. There were no complaints about the quality of food during the inspection and the results of recent SPS Prisoners Survey indicated that the food at Peterhead was rated the best in the SPS (the kitchen displayed a Notice of Year on Year comparisons stating 89% satisfaction).

Laundry

8.4 The laundry employed ten prisoners although there were three vacancies at time of inspection. The area had been refurbished three years previously and all machines were functioning. Kit and bedding, etc., were washed on a rolling programme.

8.5 There were no complaints from prisoners and the laundry was operating effectively.

Canteen

8.6 A "bag and tag" system had been introduced to the prison in November 2002. While it was therefore still in its early stages, and had had to cope with the additional demands of Christmas, it appeared to be hugely unpopular. The range of goods on offer was varied and catered for the needs of the population; items were fairly priced; and resources had been put into it. Nevertheless, everywhere there were complaints. And not just from prisoners - staff also raised it as an issue.

8.7 The Full-Time-Equivalent of staff employed in the bag and tag was 1.5, with one member of the administrative staff also deployed when the actual bagging was carried out. Other administrative staff were diverted from their normal duties to complete spreadsheets, etc., and had also been willing to help put during the Christmas holiday period. With all of this effort and goodwill going in to making the system work the question is "why the number of complaints?" True, the previous shop offered a 'social environment' for some prisoners to meet and talk, and there may perhaps be an increased risk of intimidation when contents of bags are seen. However, the system has been introduced in other establishments without this depth of feeling and the sources of the discontent in Peterhead should be discovered and tackled.

Administration

8.8 The administration staff complement was nine, two of whom were employed on a temporary contract. Staff were multi-skilled and able to cover for each other during periods of absence. Accommodation was adequate if somewhat cramped and equipment fully met needs.

8.9 The recently introduced bag and tag canteen system was the main area of concern, with staff being redirected from other duties. A further area of concern was possible prisoner access to the stores area through the fire door. While the Governor had taken steps to address this, consideration should be given to the installation of an alarm in the stores area.

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

9. GOOD PRACTICE

9.1 Uniformed staff provided a dedicated programme facilitation team for the Sex Offender Awareness Programme (paragraph 6.3).

9.2 The Sex Offender Awareness Programme aimed at prisoners who did not wish to participate in the STOP programmes (paragraph 6.14).

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Electric Power in Cells should be installed as a matter of urgency (paragraph 2.3).

10.2 Conditions in 'B' Hall and 'B Annex' should be improved immediately through access to night sanitation and single cell accommodation for all prisoners (paragraph 2.10).

10.3 Arrangements for access to proper sanitation should be put in place throughout the prison (paragraph 2.10).

10.4 Long Term sex offenders should receive comparable treatment and conditions to other Long Term prisoners, and not be disadvantaged by being compliant (paragraph 4.15).

10.5 A combination of prison officers, psychologists and social workers should be used as STOP facilitators (paragraph 6.5).

10.6 Accreditation of the adapted and extended STOP programmes should be sought immediately (paragraph 6.6).

10.7 An assessment of the long term outcomes for prisoners who have been through STOP 2000 should be undertaken (paragraph 6.7).

10.8 Peterhead should run sufficient programmes to meet the identified needs of its population (paragraph 6.11).

10.9 The proposed gate/visits complex should be progressed as a matter of urgency (paragraph 7.17).

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

11. POINTS OF NOTE

11.1 Access to telephones in 'B' Hall should be improved (paragraph 2.9).

11.2 Greater emphasis needs to be placed on Control and Restraint training (paragraph 3.3).

11.3 Due to the absence of sufficient qualified assessors, SVQ training for staff had fallen behind the scheduled programme. That should be addressed (paragraph 3.17).

11.4 The target for staff undertaking ACT training had not been met. That should be addressed (paragraph 3.18).

11.5 Assessments during induction should be better monitored and recorded (paragraph 4.2).

11.6 Written material supporting induction should be kept up to date and the quality improved (paragraph 4.2).

11.7 The target for personal officer/prisoner contacts being recorded at least monthly should be adhered to (paragraph 4.3).

11.8 The timescales for completion of all elements of the SPS sentence management procedures should be adhered to (paragraph 4.8).

11.9 Plans to develop a "top end" for sex offenders in Peterhead Prison should be re-examined in order to provide parity with other long term prisoners (paragraph 4.13).

11.10 An alarm should be fitted in the treatment room (paragraph 5.7).

11.11 An alarm should be fitted in the dental suite (paragraph 5.7).

11.12 The internal sanitation in the health centre waiting room should be covered when the room is being used (paragraph 5.8).

11.13 A bed which can be raised and lowered should be purchased for the health centre (paragraph 5.9).

11.14 A clinical computer system should be introduced to the health centre (paragraph 5.14).

11.15 The waiting times for consultation with the medical officer should be monitored (paragraph 5.17).

11.16 The nursing triage should be monitored to ensure that prisoners do not feel that access to the medical officer is being restricted (paragraph 5.18).

11.17 A Mental Health Team should be established (paragraph 5.19).

11.18 The late or non-arrival of some medication should be addressed as a matter of urgency (paragraph 5.24).

11.19 The recent decision not to allow nurses to give prisoners over-the-counter medication should be re-examined (paragraph 5.27).

11.20 Alternatives to publicly handing out medication in the Halls should be examined (paragraph 5.27).

11.21 There is a need to develop more active services in identifying the medical needs of the prisoner population (paragraph 5.38).

11.22 The needs of prisoners with learning difficulties should be addressed (paragraph 5.39).

11.23 Prisoners should be given the opportunity to address their offending behaviour in a timely fashion (paragraph 6.10).

11.24 The willingness of 'B' Hall prisoners to engage in regime activities other than STOP, and the progress they have made, must be recognised (paragraph 6.13).

11.25 The problem over the accreditation of the practical elements of SVQ courses in Amenity Horticulture and Carpentry/Joinery should be resolved (paragraph 7.6).

11.26 Arrangements concerning the present education contract should be resolved (paragraph 7.6).

11.27 Consideration should be given to developing the Library into a multi-media resource centre (paragraph 7.9).

11.28 More meaningful work opportunities should be provided within the prison (paragraph 7.14).

11.29 More work opportunities should be created for elderly prisoners who wished to work (paragraph 7.15).

11.30 The gymnasium should be upgraded (paragraph 7.22).

11.31 The Social Work Unit should examine ways of ensuring that all prisoners are seen as a matter of routine during their first three days (paragraph 7.27).

11.32 Information relating to the implementation of ACT should be routinely and quickly relayed to the Social Work Unit (paragraph 7.29).

11.33 Until proper access to sanitation is provided, safe systems of work for the emptying of porta potties and the use of their chemicals should be introduced and instructions readily available in every cell (paragraph 7.41).

11.34 The sources of discontent with the bag and tag canteen system should be discovered and tackled (paragraph 8.7).

11.35 Consideration should be given to the installation of an alarm in the stores area (paragraph 8.9).

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

ANNEX 1

Sources of Evidence

Written material and statistics received from Peterhead prior to Inspection

Prison's self-assessment

Governor's briefing

SPS Prisoner Survey

Inspectorate Questionnaire on STOP and other Programmes

Peterhead records

Peterhead vision, mission statement

SPS background material

Discussions with prisoners

Discussions with prisoners family

Focus groups with prisoners

Interviews with prisoners

Interviews with prison staff

Focus groups with staff

Observations

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

ANNEX 2

Routines

Daily Routine Monday/Friday

Time	Activity	Comments	Duration
7.45	Unlock, etc.	Prisoners have access to showers and toilet/washing facilities as practicable. Breakfast is collected and taken in cell.	1 hour
8.45	Controlled movement to work, education, programmes, physical education etc.	Prisoners who are not required or scheduled to attend activities returned to cell until route has moved. All activity areas and other areas which prisoners attend have toilet facilities.	3 hours
9.00	Hall cleaning, prisoners to surgery where appropriate, and any other general out of hall requirements.	During this period prisoners remaining in the hall are given access to showers and other washing/toilet facilities as practicable.
11.45	Prisoners return from work details.	15 minutes to wash hands prior to lunch. Prisoners also have time to wash hands etc., prior to leaving workshops or other areas.
12.05	Numbers check.		20 minutes
12.15	Lunch	Prisoners have lunch in their cells, but have the opportunity to use facilities prior to picking up their lunch.
12.45	Exercise	All prisoners are entitled to 1 hour exercise per day. There may be some slight variation in timings but not to any major degree.	1 hour
13.45	Prisoners return to work/activities etc.	Prisoners who are not required or scheduled to attend activities returned to cell until route has moved. Prisoners who are at work or education have access to toilet facilities during this period in these areas.
13.45	Prisoners remaining in the hall to PE, other hall based requirements, programmes, agent's visits, social work interviews etc.	Remaining prisoners have access to showers and other facilities as practicable.
16.45	Prisoners return from activities.
17.00	Lock-up numbers check etc.	10 minutes to wash hands prior to tea. Prisoners also have time to wash hands etc., prior to leaving workshops or other areas.	10 minutes
17.10	Tea meal.	Controlled with prisoners unlocked in sections. Prisoners have tea in their cell, but have the opportunity to use facilities prior to picking up their tea.	20 minutes
17.30	Lock up for staff meal.
18.30	Evening recreation and other activities i.e., visits on Wednesday.	Recreation in hall. All prisoners are unlocked and have access to toilets and facilities. All prisoners, in each of the halls, have access to the recreation facilities at the same time.	3 hours
21.30	Lock up.	Prisoners have no further access to toilet facilities other than porta-potty. Porta-potties are emptied twice a week in each hall.

Week-End Routine

7.30	Unlock, numbers checked cell cleaning and ablutions.		30 minutes
8.00	Breakfast.		30 minutes
8.30	Church Service or recreation and hall cleaning.	During this period prisoners remaining in the hall are given access to showers and other washing/toilet facilities as practicable.	1 hour 15 minutes
9.45	Exercise.		1 hour
10.45	Exercise in - Recreation stops for issue of brunch meal.
11.00	Brunch	Prisoners have lunch in their cells then recreation resumes.	45 minutes
12.00	Lock up and numbers check.	Prisoners have no further access to toilet facilities other than porta-potty.
12.15 to 13.30	Staff lunch.
13.30	Unlock, numbers check - recreation.		30 minutes
14.00	Recreation/visits.		2 hours
16.00	Recreation/visits cease for issue of tea meal.
16.10	Tea meal.	Prisoners have tea in their cells but have the opportunity to use facilities prior to picking up their tea. Recreation resumes.	50 minutes
17.00	Lock up then staff off duty.	Prisoners have no further access to toilet facilities other than porta-potty.

Notes

No cells have EPIC.
Prisoners can request to have a radio or a hand held TV to be sent in.
There are also TVs, videos, pool tables, darts and board games in each hall for use during recreation.
The arrangements for emptying the porta-potties are that each hall has a twice weekly rota for emptying. "Aqua'chem" sachets are issued for neutralising odours. Soap and toilet paper are freely available, with disinfectant tablets also available as required. Where and when pots are emptied, disinfectants are available at these points. There is however no provision of screening within cells.

0025122.pdf

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

HMIP Inspection of Peterhead

Executive Summary

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS Report on HM Prison Peterhead MAY 2003

Contents

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

1. INTRODUCTION

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

2. ACCOMMODATION AND POPULATION

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

3. CUSTODY AND GOOD ORDER

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

4. PRISONER MANAGEMENT

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

5. HEALTH CARE

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

6. PROGRAMMES

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

7. CARE AND OPPORTUNITIES

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

8. SERVICES

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

11. POINTS OF NOTE

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

ANNEX 1

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS: Report on HM Prison Peterhead

ANNEX 2

HM INSPECTORATE OF PRISONS
Report on HM Prison Peterhead
MAY 2003