Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about his progress in prison. At his parole tribunal, the parole board had not recommended his release but agreed to review his case again in 18 months. His management plan, agreed at the time, said that he should progress to less secure conditions and participate in a work placement before the next tribunal. He later complained to the prison about a delay in progressing him to less secure conditions. In responding, the prison advised him that he had to wait for a space to become available. At the time of writing to us, more than three months after his parole tribunal, Mr C complained that he had still not been progressed to less secure conditions.

In responding to our enquiries, the prison said that Mr C had failed drug tests two months before his parole tribunal. They explained that, because of this, he did not meet the criteria for progressing until three months after the failed test (ie one month after the tribunal). As soon as he became eligible for progression, he was referred to the risk management team, in line with the standard process. The referral paperwork clearly stated that this process could take up to a further eight weeks. Mr C's case was reviewed by the risk management team within six weeks and he was approved for progression. He then had to wait for a space to become available in less secure conditions and he was progressed around two months later. We considered this reasonable in the circumstances and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that when he submitted a complaint, the prison's hall manager did not offer him the opportunity to discuss it. When Mr C escalated the complaint to the prison’s internal complaints committee (ICC) they acknowledged that the manager should have offered an initial discussion. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C acknowledged that the prison had recognised the failing but expressed concern that they had not taken any action to stop this happening again. He noted that the failing had occurred again in other complaints he had submitted.

The prison told us that following Mr C’s complaint, the chair of the ICC had approached the manager involved and discussed the requirement to discuss complaints with prisoners. We noted that the prison rules say that within 48 hours of receiving a complaint managers must allow the prisoner the opportunity to discuss this with a view to resolving it.

We had previously investigated a complaint about the failure to comply with this rule and, on that occasion, we recommended that a reminder be issued to staff, highlighting their duties in this regard. Despite this, we observed that this was apparently continuing, and so we looked at the relevant section of the prisoner complaint form. We noted that this did not contain a prompt for managers to record their attempts to discuss the complaint with the prisoner. In the circumstances, we upheld the complaint and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• revise Section 2 of the Prisoner Complaint Form (PCF1) to prompt residential first line managers to record that a meeting has been offered to the prisoner and whether the offer was accepted.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay of over three months in providing him with work. He believed he should have been paid a working wage for this period, as opposed to a basic cell wage, as he was willing to work. The prison informed us that Mr C’s work history had been problematic because of his general behaviour. They provided us with information which satisfied us that efforts had been made to provide Mr C with employment opportunities and that these had been unsuccessful because he did not comply with the regime. In the circumstances, we did not consider that there had been an unreasonable delay in providing Mr C with work and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint.

Mr C also complained that, during his period of unemployment, he was attending education classes but not receiving appropriate payment for this. The prison had said that he was attending on a trial basis due to previous behaviour issues and that it had been agreed with him in advance that this would not attract an enhanced payment, but Mr C disputed this. The prison told us that Mr C’s attendance at education was viewed as a trial to give him the opportunity to improve his behaviour, as agreed after a meeting with Mr C and the education manager. However, we noted that this agreement had not been documented. In addition, we noted that the prison, in responding to Mr C’s complaint, concluded that the wages policy had been followed and that Mr C had not been financially disadvantaged. Having discussed this with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), we noted that this was not correct and that, in line with normal policy, Mr C would have received an enhanced payment for attending part time education. The SPS told us that they were aware of individual prisons potentially misinterpreting the wages policy on such payments and that they planned to issue clear guidance about this.

We did not, however, uphold this complaint. While noting the apparent misinterpretation, we acknowledged the prison’s right to deviate from the policy in exceptional circumstances and, in light of Mr C’s reported behaviours, and the positive steps taken by the prison to try to reintegrate him.

Finally, Mr C complained that he was held up by a week in starting new employment as a result of a delay by the prison in inducting him for a work party. The prison explained that staff could not induct him due to a lack of materials, and that Mr C was kept informed. They confirmed that Mr C was inducted at the earliest opportunity and placed on the appropriate wage for the work party thereafter. They said it would not have been appropriate for Mr C to have received this wage prior to induction as he was not yet qualified to carry out the role. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• advise staff to ensure they document any decisions to deviate from normal policy, clearly recording the rationale for doing so and the steps taken to agree this with the prisoner; and
• notify the Ombudsman when they have issued staff guidance on the interpretation of the wages policy in relation to prisoners attending education on a sessional basis.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were inappropriately deducting wages from him when he was not required to attend work. Mr C said that the relevant policy said that prisoners should not be penalised if work or activity was curtailed or unavailable due to operations reasons.

Our investigation into Mr C's complaint confirmed that he was employed in the timber assembly work party. Due to high demand within that work party, Mr C would be called to work on a rotational basis to ensure that no prisoners were disadvantaged. However, even when Mr C was not required to work, he still received his full wage payment. The evidence available suggested that the prison were paying Mr C appropriately and there was no evidence to suggest that this was not the case.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that his personal officer had failed to engage with him appropriately. He was also unhappy with the prison governor's response to his complaint. We were unable to comment on whether the personal officer had encouraged or motivated Mr C in line with the relevant guidance or on whether he had had a positive relationship with her. However, there was no evidence that she had attended or completed the required reports for his integrated case management conferences or that she had sent anyone to attend in her place. In addition, most of the entries that the personal officer completed on the prisoner record system were made after Mr C referred his complaint to us.

There was little documentary evidence that the personal officer had engaged with Mr C before he complained, although we noted that she had been absent from work for part of this time. We found that Mr C had not received the service and support from the personal officer scheme to which he was entitled, and in view of this, upheld this aspect of his complaint. That said, our investigation found that the prison governor had responded promptly to Mr C's complaint, and that her comments about trying to resolve the matter were reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold his complaint about this, as we found that the governor had dealt with Mr C's complaint appropriately.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failure to provide him with the service and support he was entitled to receive from the personal officer scheme;
• consider whether it would be appropriate to change Mr C's personal officer in light of our findings; and
• consider if a review of the personal officer scheme should be carried out.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was being inappropriately denied the opportunity to attend his work party. Mr C said that on the mornings he attended the gym, he would not be taken to work.

Our investigation of Mr C's complaint confirmed that he was employed by the laundry work party to work mornings. The prison explained that the laundry work party was oversubscribed and because of this they divided the work between morning workers and afternoon workers. The prison explained that Mr C chose to attend the gym some mornings each week and because of that, he would not be taken to work. However, the prison said that even though he attended the gym instead of work, he still received the appropriate wage payment. In light of the information, we were satisfied that Mr C was not being inappropriately denied the opportunity to attend work.

Water

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably refused access to the special escorted leave (SEL) scheme. Under the scheme, an eligible prisoner can be authorised leave of absence from prison for the purpose of visiting their home for a couple of hours.

Mr C is serving a sentence of twelve years and had been transferred from a closed prison to the national top end facility. (A top end is the half way point between closed prison and open conditions.) Mr C said he had been led to believe that when he arrived there he would be allowed to participate in the SEL scheme. Our investigation found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) progression policy says that a prisoner needs to have served four years out of a twelve-year sentence before they become eligible to be considered for transfer to less secure conditions. In Mr C's case, he had only served three and a half years of his sentence, and the SPS accepted, with hindsight, that they should not have accepted him for transfer at that point in his sentence. In addition, one of the criteria in the SPS SEL guidance was that a prisoner must have served at least a third of their sentence, and Mr C had not done that either. Because of those factors, the prison responsible for managing the top end facility explained to Mr C that he had been accepted for progression too early and would not be allowed to participate in the SEL scheme at this time.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prisoners only had access to water which was not as good quality as the water available to staff in his prison. Our investigation established that this was not the case. Staff and prisoners had access to water coolers of different types. For reasons of flexibility, staff tended to have the type with bottled water and prisoners tended to have the type that require proximity to a water tap (at which point the water went through a filtration process). In any case, we found that prisons were not required to provide anything other than normal tap water for prisoners.

Mr C considered that the prison's reply to his complaint about the above was wrong because he thought it conflicted with another reply he had received. However, we were satisfied that this was not the case.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was asked to sign a form in prison to say that he agreed to comply with certain standards of behaviour. We were satisfied that it was appropriate for the prison to seek to manage prisoner behaviour by introducing a form about expected behaviour standards if they wished to do so, and to invite prisoners to sign it to signify agreement. We also considered it appropriate that prisoners did not have to sign but that, if they chose not to do so, this would be noted in their records.

Mr C also considered that the prison's reply to his complaint was wrong because he said it conflicted with a reply to another prisoner. We could not comment on the other prisoner's complaint for reasons of confidentiality, and because we did not know the full story of that complaint or the reply to it. However, we were satisfied that the prison's reply to his own complaint was not inaccurate.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had decided to put his outgoing mail on the mail intercept scheme. This meant that any non legal or non privileged mail that he sent out of the prison could be opened and read by prison staff. Mr C complained that the decision was unreasonable because there was no evidence to support the prison's position.

Our investigation found that the prison took this decison after a copy of a letter he sent to the council was returned to the prison. When prison staff read the letter, which they were entitled to do, they felt its content was threatening. Because of that, the prison took the decision to place Mr C's outgoing non legal or non privileged mail on the mail intercept scheme. We were satisfied the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.