2.25 More than 25% of prisoners were from a black and minority ethnic background. Our survey
showed more negative perceptions among these prisoners, compared with their white counterparts, in most areas of the regime. More of them said that they currently felt unsafe (29% versus 17%), and fewer said that they had been treated well in reception (39% versus 67%), that staff treated them respectfully (59% versus 79%) and that staff spoke to them during association (6% versus 21%). They were also less engaged in the regime, with 29% saying that they were working, compared with 48% of white prisoners, and 51% that they participated in association five times a week, compared with 69% of white prisoners (see main recommendation S56).
2.26 There were 173 Muslim prisoners and their perceptions were similarly negative, relative to
non-Muslim prisoners. Only 48% (versus 77%) said that staff treated them respectfully, 33% (versus 18%) that they currently felt unsafe and 30% (versus 45%) that they had a prison job, and none reported undertaking vocational or skills training. Although there was good provision for practising religions (see section on faith and religious activity), only 39% of Muslim prisoners said that their religious beliefs were respected, compared with 52% of their non-Muslim counterparts (see main recommendation S56).
2.27 No work was being done by the prison to identify or understand these negative perceptions.
There were no mechanisms to engage with or consult prisoners from minority backgrounds about their perceptions (see main recommendation S56). Staff were not trained in equality and diversity issues beyond their initial training.
2.28 There were 147 foreign national prisoners (13.3% of the population), representing 46
nationalities, recorded by the prison at the time of the inspection. Although 99% of prisoners in our survey said that they understood spoken English, arrangements for communicating with non-English speakers were not systematic or consistent. The prison had access to professional telephone interpreting services but they had been used only 10 times in the previous six months. We were told that there was a list of prisoners willing to interpret but we did not see it being used, and staff on the wings said that they would informally find other prisoners to help with interpreting as the need arose. There was no translated written material about the prison, except for a few standard notices about immigration. Prisoners we spoke to who had limited understanding of English told us that they had not received help
Section 2. Respect
than having their needs assessed and provided for by staff systematically (see
recommendation 1.14). Since the previous inspection, two foreign national prisoners had taken their own lives, and we were concerned that the lack of systematic checks might have resulted in their needs being overlooked, contributing to their distress (see main
recommendation S56).
2.29 The Home Office immigration officer visited the prison twice a week, meeting individually
with sentenced prisoners who were facing removal, to keep them informed of progress with their cases and options for return to their country of origin. Independent advice for
prisoners subject to removal procedures was not available. At the time of the inspection, there were 10 prisoners being held beyond the end of their sentence. They were treated as remand prisoners but the prison had been unable to secure places at an immigration removal centre, which would have provided them with a less restrictive regime.
2.30 In our survey, 18% of respondents said that they considered themselves to have a disability
but the prison did not keep a central register. There was no single disability officer for the prison but on each wing one member of residential staff had responsibility for the care of prisoners with disabilities. This responsibility was discharged inconsistently across the prison, in terms of identifying these prisoners, planning for their care and having contingencies for their evacuation. In our survey, the responses of this group were more negative than those of their able-bodied counterparts. More of them said that they currently felt unsafe (39% versus 16%) and that they had been victimised by other prisoners (57% versus 28%) (see main recommendation S56).
2.31 On E wing, several older prisoners and those with disabilities were located together on one
spur. The disability officer on this wing was proactive in identifying those with a disability and assigning paid carer prisoners to provide assistance. Although this was beneficial to prisoners we spoke to, the carers did not have clear job descriptions and the care they were to provide was not sufficiently well planned or clearly defined. Carers told us that they did not receive specific training and, when assigned to a prisoner, they themselves had to decide what help they would provide. In some instances, the personal care they provided should have been the responsibility of professional care workers (see also sections on bullying and violence reduction and safeguarding, and recommendation 1.32).
2.32 There were two larger cells on F wing that had been adapted for prisoners using a
wheelchair. These cells had an adapted toilet, and accessible switches and alarms. One of these was occupied by a prisoner with significant needs, who told us that he had moved there from the inpatient unit 12 months previously. He said that his care was not planned and that he was helped by other prisoners on a voluntary basis, when they saw that he needed help. He was unable to take a shower without help and said that he was often locked in his cell all day. A care plan had been prepared not long after his arrival but it was not sufficiently detailed, having just two actions listed, and there was no evidence of a
contribution from health services staff in identifying his needs; this was of particular concern as he had come to the wing from the inpatient unit, where he had been receiving treatment. The prisoner told us that he had not been consulted about whether his needs were being met, and the plan had not been reviewed periodically (see main recommendation S56).
2.33 Emergency evacuation plans were not in place for all prisoners who needed them.
2.34 The prison held 20 prisoners under the age of 21 years. There were no arrangements for
meeting their specific needs, and they were treated the same as adult prisoners. The equality monitoring that had recently started had identified areas in which they were over-
represented, such as use of force and disciplinary measures. A policy on young adults did not outline their potential needs and how these should be met. There was no recognition of their particular vulnerability when mixing with adults in the sex offender population (see also section on bullying and violence reduction).
Section 2. Respect
2.35 There were 147 prisoners over the age of 50, the oldest being 81, and in our survey they
were more positive than younger prisoners in many areas. Other than the assistance available to those older prisoners located together on E wing (see above), there was no specific provision for such prisoners elsewhere. Those who were not working were not always unlocked during the working day and there were no activities for them. Pay for retired prisoners had increased since the previous inspection, from £3 to £5.50 a week.
2.36 In our survey, 2% of respondents identified as gay or bisexual, extrapolating to 22 in the
population. There were no arrangements to provide them with specific support and guidance on issues of sexuality (see main recommendation S56).
2.37 There were two transgender prisoners in the prison at the time of the inspection and they
were living safely on normal location, participating in the regime. Although most staff were trying to meet their particular needs, these prisoners felt that there was too much
inconsistency in their treatment and that more could be done to help them live as women and ensure their privacy and dignity (see main recommendation S56).
Recommendations
2.38 All prisoners with a disability should have a care plan, which should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is being implemented and to identify any changes in their circumstances. Plans should be informed by all departments, especially health care, which have knowledge of these prisoners’ needs.
2.39 Prisoner carers should have clearly defined roles and their activities should be monitored to ensure the appropriateness of their work.