Hm Prison Bristol

REPORT ON AN UNANNOUNCED FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION OF HM PRISON BRISTOL 3 – 5 SEPTEMBER 2001 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS 2 PREFACE As far as Bristol prison itself is concerned, this is overall a very positive report. In all but one area, it records significant progress made since the last inspection report. More than that, it draws attention to the excellent and innovative work being carried out in resettlement, drugs and legal services: ‘We saw more work being done at Bristol to deal with the needs of resettlement and help prisoners to address offending behaviour than in any other local prison we have inspected. The Jade project and the drugs strategy were two key examples.’ This report does, however raise two important issues which are primarily matters for the Prison Service, and not for the prison. The resettlement work that is going on in Bristol should be the rule, not the exception, in local prisons. They release hundreds of prisoners every month into the community, many of them short-term prisoners who are among the most prolific offenders, with the greatest resettlement needs and, at present, the lowest level of provision. Local prisons need to be specifically tasked with a resettlement role, as we recommend in this report and set out in detail in our recent thematic review, Through the Prison Gate. And innovative projects, like Bristol’s Jade project, need to be analysed and disseminated as good practice throughout the prison system. Secondly, the part of the prison which caused us great concern was its healthcare centre. Staff shortages, sickness and recruitment problems had resulted in unacceptable and potentially unsafe conditions for patients. These are conditions that would not have been allowed to exist, or continue, in healthcare provision outside the Prison Service. Individual prisons cannot solve such problems on their own. Providing satisfactory healthcare, particularly in high-cost high-employment areas, is a critical issue for the Prison Service and the NHS as a whole. As a start, personnel recruitment policies should be sharpened up, with a more proactive strategy for 3 retention and recruitment and much faster security clearance for staff recruited. In the longer term, prison healthcare must become an integral part of national and regional healthcare, with the same quality standards and resource priorities. ANNE OWERS HM Chief Inspector of Prisons December 2001 4 CONTENTS Paragraph Page PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 7 FACT PAGE 9 CHAPTER ONE PROGRESS SINCE THE 1999 REPORT 1.01-1.221 11 CHAPTER TWO TESTS OF A HEALTHY PRISON 2.01-2.26 57 CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE Recommendations Director General 3.01-3.09 63 Area Manager 3.10-3.11 64 Governor 3.12-3.71 64 Examples of good practice 3.72-3.80 72 APPENDICES 1. Inspection Team 2. Daily routines 3. Prisoner population 5 6 INTRODUCTION Short inspections have been developed to ensure that the Inspectorate visit and check establishments between full inspections. They are carried out by a small team, last two or three days and are usually unannounced. Clearly they cannot serve the functions of full inspections but we believe that they are important in highlighting issues of concern or praiseworthy areas relating to the treatment of prisoners. They are not intended to cover every aspect of the prison. Three inspectors, Mr John Podmore, Mrs Fay Deadman and Mr Eddie Killoran carried out an unannounced short inspection of HMP Bristol from 3 to 5 September 2001. The inspection’s main purpose was to review progress on recommendations made after the last inspection in 1999. The team also monitored the treatment of prisoners using the model of the healthy prison described in ‘Expectations’ published by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in his Annual Report 1999-2000. During their visit they met prisoners and staff and had discussions with the Governor and the Chairman of the Board of Visitors. They discussed their conclusions with the Governor and members of the senior management team before they left. 7 8 FACT PAGE Task of the establishment HMP Bristol held adult male prisoners and serviced local courts in Bristol and Avon. It was also a Category A facility for the South West Region. Area organisation South West Number of prisoners: Total population 581 Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) 486 Operational Capacity 603 Cost per place CNA – cost per place £32,200. (KPT target 2001/2002) Last full announced inspection 12 – 21 April 1999 Last short unannounced inspection 14 – 16 October 1996 Description of residential units Three Victorian wings A, G & D. B and C wings dated from 1960; B wing has an electronic locking system to access sanitation. · A Wing is for remands · B Wing is a lifer/long-term wing · C Wing – drug free wing – convicted and remand · G wing – convicted 9 · D wing – Safe Custody Unit, consisting of previous Rule 45s and poor copers and prisoners with behavioural problems. · E wing – 11 standard cells and 2 unfurnished cells · Health Care – 20 beds Brief History · HMP Bristol was a Victorian prison opened in 1883. · Major buildings works were completed to enable the establishment to fulfil its new role of holding Category A prisoners. The prisoner population · 43.5% of the population was unsentenced · 21% of the sentenced population were serving life sentences · 40% were serving sentences of up to two years · 21% of prisoners were charged with drugs offences; 16% with driving offences; 13% with offences of theft and handling; and 12% with the offence of murder. · 55% of the population were aged between 21 – 29 years. · 25% of the prisoner population were from the Avon area; 19% were from Wales; 16% from Devon and 15% from Dorset · 21% of prisoners were from ethnic minorities · 49% of prisoners were of no stated religion; 25% were Church of England and 15.5% Roman Catholic; 5% were Muslim, 1% Buddhist and 1% Hindu. 10 CHAPTER ONE PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REPORT Introduction 1.01 In order to examine the progress that had been achieved following our last inspection in April 1999, we have used the recommendations from that report as a framework for our examination of the establishment. 1.02 We have commented where we have found significant improvements and where we believe little or no progress had been made and work remained to be done. We have also highlighted additional information relating to work being undertaken. During this inspection we concentrated on aspects that directly affected the treatment and conditions for prisoners and therefore not all the recommendations from the last inspection were examined. The numbers in brackets at the end of each recommendation identify the paragraph where it appeared in the text of the last report. To the Director General 1.03 Consideration should be given to making Bristol a regional induction centre for lifers. (2.27) Achieved, in that there had been a national review of those prisons taking lifers at all stages of the process, particularly in the context of Schedule 2 lifers. There had been no change in Bristol’s role in the lifer system. 1.04 Local prisons should be formally tasked with the resettlement of remand and short sentenced prisoners and provided with the practical guidance and support to effect this. (4.06) Not achieved. There had been some innovation from individual establishments and particularly so from Bristol in the form of the Jade project. There was still insufficient direction from Prison Service Headquarters. Specifically, the problems of ‘revolving door prisoners’ needed to be corporately acknowledged and addressed. We repeat the 11 recommendation. (See also thematic review of the Prison and Probation Inspectorates ‘Through the Prison Gate’ [2001]). 1.05 All psychologists working with lifers should be trained in the use of the dispersal assessment package. (4.22) Not achieved. The establishment were still awaiting instructions from Prison Service Headquarters regarding training in the use of the dispersal assessment package in the light of planned changes to the lifer system. We repeat the recommendation. 1.06 The single storey buildings and the portacabins should be demolished and replaced by multi-storey structures. (8.04) Not inspected. 1.07 The plenum heating system should be replaced with a wet pipe system having adequate zoning to ensure economic automatic temperature control. (8.05) Not inspected. 1.08 Falls and drainage from the whole north-east corner of the site should be revised to ensure that water does not reach the buildings. (8.09) Not inspected. 1.09 All flat roofs should be protected by superimposed lightweight pitched roofing. (8.10) Not inspected. To the Area Manager 1.10 Resources should be allocated to provide prisoners on B Wing with access to toilet and washing facilities throughout the periods when they are located in their cells. (2.14) Achieved following a major refurbishment. 1.11 Resources should be provided to refurbish the toilet areas on B Wing. (2.15) Achieved following a major refurbishment. 12 1.12 The criteria for the transfer of sentenced prisoners to training prisons in the South West should be examined. (4.08) Achieved as part of an ongoing process. 1.13 A purpose built sports hall should be funded. (5.28) Not achieved. There were no funds available to build a purpose built sports hall, and we were informed that competing priorities made this increasingly less likely in the near future. An addition to the general physical education provision had been provided in the form of an occupational health centre. It was in the final stages of completion at the time of the inspection and it was intended that the facility would be available for staff as well as prisoners.

Load more