Hm Prison Liverpool

REPORT ON AN UNANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HM PRISON LIVERPOOL 10 – 14 JUNE 2002 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS 1 2 INTRODUCTION Liverpool is one of the largest and oldest prisons in the country. Its largely Victorian buildings hold nearly 1500 prisoners. Like all local prisons, it suffers severely from the problems of overcrowding. Many single cells hold two prisoners with an unscreened toilet, and there is considerable difficulty in safely managing and assessing the large number of prisoners coming through reception every day. Liverpool sees itself, and has been seen by the Prison Service, as the workhorse of the prison system in the north-west. It regularly takes overcrowding drafts from other prisons, often at some distance, and has no specific quota of allocations to training prisons. It has therefore been difficult for the prison to have a clear vision of its role, or a positive sense of purpose. The prison has also suffered historically from poor industrial relations, which continued up to the time of our inspection. There had been an attempt to negotiate revised staffing levels and profiles, but this had been challenged by the Prison Officers’ Association (a challenge which failed shortly after our inspection). This gap between agreed work patterns and regime requirements was one through which prisoners’ needs fell. At the time of the inspection, Liverpool was not delivering an acceptable regime, or standards of hygiene and cleanliness, for the prisoners in its care. The availability of showers, association and exercise was far below the average for other local prisons. Some prisoners were reduced to one shower and one change of clothing per week. Prisoners were out of their cells for an hour less a day than at our last inspection, and far less than prisoners in other local prisons would expect. Association was also limited, and liable to cancellation. We expect prisoners in local prisons to have association at least five times a week, and on average we find that this happens around a third of the time. In Liverpool, it happened only 1% of the time. Most prisoners had association on only one day during the week, and there was a 25% chance on one wing that even this would be cancelled. We describe this situation as ‘no better than regimes for prisoners who are being punished’. 3 The standard of cleanliness on the induction wing, where prisoners spent their first night in custody was unacceptable: we describe it as some of the worst accommodation we have seen, with cockroach infestation, broken windows and unclean toilet facilities. We found prisoners who lacked towels, razors, toothpaste, adequate mattresses or pillows. Standards of hygiene and cleanliness in the healthcare centre were also unacceptable. Opportunities for work and education, which we had criticised in our 1999 report, were in fact fewer by 2002. Though the education provision was of good quality, only 18% of prisoners had access to it, and that only part-time, in spite of the prison’s own findings that 95% of them had literacy and numeracy levels below the employability level. There were education places for only 10 remand prisoners, and no work spaces for them. No national vocational qualifications were being offered in any workshop, and prisoners’ wages were well below the national average. Resettlement work was still in its infancy, though it was something that the Governor and senior staff were keen to develop. There were a number of projects operating, but they did not reach the majority of prisoners, and relied on prisoners to know about and to apply for them. This was largely the result of the lack of personal officer and sentence planning work. Sentence planning was so far behind that it was accepted that many prisoners would leave Liverpool without a plan having been prepared. Use of release on temporary licence (ROTL) and home detention curfew (HDC) was the lowest we have seen: ROTL had been used only ten times in three years and only 18% of eligible prisoners were released on HDC, compared with 64% at Manchester. We were assured that many of these problems would be overcome if and when the new staffing levels were agreed (as has since happened). We were dubious about this. The new plans did not seem to envisage dramatic changes in the regime. Nor were we convinced that staff, without very active management on the wings and from Governors, would readily move towards a more proactive and flexible approach. Despite these severe criticisms, we did not find evidence of a negative culture at Liverpool nor evidence of overt disrespect between staff and prisoners. Indeed, we note a 'marked 4 improvement in culture' since our last inspection and record considerable evidence of camaraderie between staff and prisoners, many of whom had been in the prison several times before. Similarly, we do acknowledge that some improvements had been made since the past inspection, particularly in relation to suicide and self-harm procedures, and there were pockets of excellent work in the new resettlement unit, PE and education. There was also some very sound work with vulnerable prisoners. Many staff and managers expressed a desire to do more, and to move the prison on. What appeared to be lacking was sufficient vision and drive to make the most effective use of resources and to set clear positive objectives, even given the difficult circumstances of the prison. Liverpool was a prison that was seriously underperforming in terms of providing a decent and positive environment for the many men who passed through it. We believe it urgently needs to acquire a new momentum. This has to come from both inside and outside the prison. The Prison Service needs to be clear about the role it wants Liverpool to perform, rather than simply using it as the overflow for the considerable overcrowding difficulties of other prisons. Staffing levels and profiles need to be agreed, and used to deliver a decent, respectful and consistent regime. Education and training urgently need to be increased, to meet the considerable identified needs of the prisoners, without which employment will remain a forlorn hope for many. And the prison’s emerging resettlement strategy has to ensure that there are effective sentence plans that meet the needs of all prisoners, over a quarter of whom, on its own analysis, leave without homes to go to. This agenda is a hugely demanding one, particularly in the face of current and deteriorating overcrowding problems, which can only add further to the establishment's burdens. But it is an agenda that must be addressed, if the north of England’s largest local prison is to do more than simply contain and recycle its 1500 prisoners. Anne Owers HM Chief Inspector of Prisons January 2003 5 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION 3-5 PRE-AMBLE 7 FACT PAGE 8-9 1 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY 1.01 - 1.104 10-30 2. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST INSPECTION 2.01 - 2.307 31-86 3. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 3.01 - 3.114 87-101 APPENDICES I Inspection team II Summary of Prisoner Questionnaires 6 PRE-AMBLE Eight inspectors, John Podmore, Tish Laing-Morton, Fay Deadman, Ruth Whitehead, Guy Baulf, Pat Mosley, Paul Fenning and Eddie Killoran, carried out a full unannounced inspection of HMP Liverpool from 10 to 14 June 2002. The main purpose was to review progress on recommendations made following the last full inspection in January 1999. The team also monitored the treatment of prisoners using the model of the healthy prison introduced in the thematic review Suicide is everyone’s concern, published by the Inspectorate in1999. The inspection included meetings with prisoners and staff as well as discussions with the Governor. The main findings were discussed with the Governor at the end of the visit. 7 FACT PAGE Task of the establishment: A local prison serving the Merseyside Courts holding adult prisoners. The prison is also designated as an initial life sentence assessment centre, holding up to 100 life sentenced prisoners. As a local prison, prisoners are classified by security category and allocated to appropriate training prisons. The Prison Service serves to deliver the statement of purpose to keep in custody those committed by the courts, to look after prisoners with humanity and help them lead law abiding lives in custody and on release. A range of educational, resettlement and offending behaviour courses are offered to a proportion of prisoners. The prison plays an important, practical role in the management of overcrowding in the estate. Brief history HMP Liverpool was constructed in 1855 to replace a much older and cramped establishment. The prison covers some 22 acres and has a single capped security wall. There are 8 wings and a Health Care Centre. It is a Category B male, local prison. Prison Service Operational Area: The prison serves the whole Merseyside area. Number held 1466 Cost £21,299 Certified normal accommodation 1216 (now 1202) 8 Operational capacity 1498 Last full inspection 18 to 27 January 1999 Description of residential units Max nos Wing Description 114 A VP Wing 184 B Voluntary Drug Testing 170 F Lifer Wing – Maximum 100 places for lifers – 58 lifers held in June 241 G Generic Sentenced 206 H Detox Unit 261 I Generic – Convicted remand 194 K Reception Wing and Unconvicted 70 J Resettlement and Drug Treatment 58 HCC Health Care Unit 9 CHAPTER ONE HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY Introduction 1.01 All inspection reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of prisoners, based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this Inspectorate’s thematic review Suicide is everyone’s concern, published in 1999.

Load more