Concerns Raised by Manchester Prison Inspection Board on Prison Conditions and Treatment, Summaries of Communication

Download Concerns Raised by Manchester Prison Inspection Board on Prison Conditions and Treatment and more Summaries Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

Annual Report of the

Independent Monitoring Board

at HMP Manchester

For the reporting year: 1 March 2019 to 28 February

Published: December 2020

Table of contents

Introductory sections

• 1 The statutory role of the IMB Section Topic Page
• 2 Executive summary
• 3 Description of the establishment
• 4 Safety Evidence sections
• 5 Equality and fairness
• 6 Segregation/Care and separation unit
• 7 Accommodation (including communication)
• 8 Healthcare (including mental health and social care)
• 9 Education and other activities
• 10 Work, vocational training and employment
• 11 Resettlement preparation
  • The work of the IMB
  • Applications to the IMB

Section 2: Executive summary

Main judgements:

Are prisoners treated fairly? The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) at HMP Manchester is satisfied that the prison endeavours to operate to all relevant regulations and guidelines, and the prison’s own locally established principles, in ways which are fair and just to its prisoners. However, resourcing and operational considerations have frequently prevented this from being achieved fully. This report presents the findings of the Board at HMP Manchester for the period 1 March 2019 to 28 February 2020. Board evidence is obtained from observations made on visits, scrutiny of records and of data, informal contact with prisoners and staff, surveys and prisoner applications. More specifically, the Board monitored the management of prisoners and their treatment through regular visits to the establishment and attendance at segregation reviews, adjudications and when attending incidents. The establishment encourages prisoner representation at appropriate meetings, and the Board also acknowledges the fairness of treatment of prisoners through the complaints process and, indeed, our own prisoner application system. The Board is satisfied that prisoners are treated fairly and within the law, and any incidents within the prison are professionally managed. The wellbeing of the prisoner is a priority but often has to be balanced against operational and security considerations, which sometimes take precedence. Are prisoners treated humanely? In the experience of Board members, staff are fair and consistent towards prisoners. We see at close range that officers engage with prisoners in a professional manner. The Board is concerned that during most of the reporting year staffing has been a concern, as in addition to the reduction in staff numbers, experienced prison officers have left the service. Tie has impacted on resourcing issues which have meant that there has not been a full or settled regime in operation, and this is evidenced within the various sections within this report. The lack of access for prisoners to meaningful activity became such a concern to the Board that in October 2019 we wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice to raise the issue. The Board was also concerned by the large proportion of healthcare appointments which prisoners did not attend as a result of there being inadequate resources to escort them there (see paragraph 8.3). Prisoners are able to access the complaints process, although the Board has raised concerns regarding the standard and thoroughness of responses to prisoners.

The process of induction for prisoners arriving at Manchester has been inconsistent, and this is a concern to the Board, particularly for prisoners entering the prison system for the first time. Are prisoners prepared well for their release? Please refer to section 11 of this report.

Main areas for development

To the Minister The Board reported last year on the efforts of HMP Manchester to secure HMPPS funding to enable much needed improvements across the estate. A business case was presented with priority items for consideration; one of the items identified, and which remains outstanding, was the provision of ‘safer custody windows’ (see paragraph 7.6). Issues of concern will remain for the Board while prisoners retain the facility to discard litter and food waste via their current cell windows. In addition to the reduction in litter, the design of safer custody windows would reduce the opportunities for prisoners to receive drugs from external routes – for example, prisoners passing drugs/illicit items between each other and drone delivery, which has been an issue for the prison in recent years. These windows also reduce the risk of prisoners self-harming or potentially committing suicide as the design negates the opportunity for tying a ligature to the structure. Can the minister expedite approval of the necessary funding? Prisoners at HMP Manchester have to take their food back to their cells and eat their meals on their lap from a tray. In some cases, particularly in the ‘top jail’ (see paragraph 3.2), they only have a screen curtain to separate their accommodation from the toilet area. The Board would enquire of the minister if steps could be taken to provide the prison with a separate canteen facility for its prisoners. This particular issue is one which the Board has raised regularly within recent annual reports. The majority of applications received by the Board from prisoners has concerned the loss of their property, both when moving cells within the establishment and being transferred to or from HMP Manchester. What assurances can the minister provide to the Board that the handling of prisoner property is being prioritised to and from various prison establishments across the country? The Board is very concerned about prisoners with seemingly extremely poor mental health being retained at HMP Manchester, and enduring long periods of time under constant watch (see paragraphs 8.10 to 8.16). What assurances can be offered to ensure that prisoners suffering from these symptoms can be swiftly placed in specialist accommodation to best support their needs? To the Governor The Board welcomes the arrival of a new Governor to HMP Manchester towards the end of 2019 and notes the positive impact he has had in a short period of time, particularly in relation to the morale of the staff. There do remain concerns, however, with a number of issues at the prison which the Board has raised in previous reports and which, in our view, the Governor should prioritise.

office away from the administration block and relocate it within the main body of the prison on the ‘bottom jail’ (see paragraph 3.2). The progression of the key worker scheme has provided evidence of closer engagement opportunities between wing officers and prisoners (see paragraphs 4.14 to 4.21). An improvement programme has also been welcomed by the Board, with new showers on some wings, the completion of converted cells to accommodate disabled prisoners and the use of H1 wing to maintain a calm and structured regime for older prisoners. The provision of telephones for prisoners in every cell (except on the segregation unit) has been a major enhancement for prisoners, who are now able to contact relatives and friends throughout the day, as opposed to being restricted to specific time periods previously for using the wing telephones.

Section 3: Description of the establishment

3.1 HMP Manchester is a local prison, responsible for detaining an adult male population that has been sentenced and remanded from courts in the Greater Manchester locality. A maximum of 44 high-risk and standard category A prisoners are also accommodated at the prison. The specialist intervention unit (SIU) has the capacity for up to six centrally managed prisoners. 3.2 The residential accommodation comprises two Victorian radial blocks, identified as the top and bottom jails. A number of units are included in the wings. The population is housed in either single or double cells, all having integral sanitation and in-cell power points. The Board has been informed that the establishment will accommodate 6 46 single cells and 49 cells with double occupancy as part of the plans to change its function to become a category B training prison. 3.3 There is a separate healthcare centre (HCC), which incorporates both in- and outpatient facilities. All facilities available in the community, including dentistry, optical, podiatry and pharmacy services, are offered. 3.4 The chapel is situated between the two accommodation blocks and holds weekly services for a wide range of faiths within the prison population. A world faith centre is located in the education centre. 3.5 There are a number of workshops situated on the site, offering a range of skills to prisoners, including a professional print shop, bakery, laundry and textiles. Also located near to the workshops are the prison kitchens and an on-site catering facility for staff, known as Crofters. A new role for HMP Manchester 3.6 The Board is now experiencing a period of transition within its monitoring role and believes that it is important to highlight in this report some context around the plans for HMP Manchester preparing for its new function as a category B training establishment.

3. 7 In March 2017, following a site visit and review by the Prison Estates Transformation Programme, a decision was made that HMP Manchester would change function, from a core local within the high-security estate to a category B training establishment with a category A function (including category A remand).
4. 8 This has not been an easy process as there are no precedents on which to draw, as holding category A prisoners securely and safely in, essentially, a category B prison has not been done before, to the knowledge of the Board.
5. 9 The Board would have welcomed the opportunity to have been more informed about the changes by the prison, as the main communication channels have been restricted to a verbal update received from the Governor at the monthly Board meetings. 3.10 The target population for the establishment within its new role has been agreed at
   744. The Board has been observing the actions taken to reduce prisoner numbers. This is mainly being achieved by the prison no longer accepting new prisoners from the local magistrates’ and Crown Courts.

DDA: Disability Discrimination Act VP: vulnerable prisoner; YA: young adult New core day 3.1 6 The establishment is currently profiled to a local ‘model of operational delivery’, with a regime where the prisoners can have a domestic period either in the morning or the afternoon. As a training prison, the expectation is that prisoners will work full time. It has been decided that the main core day will finish at 5 .30pm. This will allow for sufficient regime hours and the serving of the evening meal to take place in the evening duty period, along with any domestic activities required. 3.1 7 The Board intends to monitor the opportunities available to prisoners for evening association and early evening gym use as a result of the proposed changes. 3.1 8 The Board will also seek to monitor closely the operational delivery of these core days once this has been finalised and the profiling exercise has been concluded. Staffing reductions 3.1 9 The Board has recognised that the staffing structure to support the new model will result in overall staff reductions. The Board has not received information on new shift patterns at the time of this report but will be monitoring the effects on prisoners in the next reporting year. Moving forward

3. 20 The Board understands that this is an opportunity for Manchester to make the most of the challenging period ahead and may be a testing period for members of the Board, to consider how the changes will affect prisoners and staff.

3. 21 Initial observations of the Board have included the population movement, with reducing numbers of prisoners occupying the prison. The Board has identified the following changes in the early period of transition: - category B prisoners remaining at HMP Manchester until their security category is downgraded or a progressive transfer is agreed - category C prisoners being transferred out of the prison, although any category C prisoners will be retained at HMP Manchester should the remainder of their sentence not exceed 12 months - category D progressive transfer requests being made to support moves to open conditions. Only one category D prisoner has been affected, and he has since been transferred out of the establishment. 3.2 2 The Board is able to report that physical works have started to refresh the residential areas. This includes the removal of bunk beds from a majority of the double cells, which will result in the establishment having the number of cells referenced in paragraph 3.2. 3.2 3 The Board has been advised by the Governor, at its regular monthly meetings, on key changes as they occur, for example:

• Licence revokes and Manchester Magistrates’ Court’s redirects were moved from HMP Manchester to HMP Forest Bank on 25 November 2019.
• The Crown Court function was switched off for HMP Manchester, and HMP Forest Bank took up this role from 3 February 2020. HMP Manchester no longer received any prisoners from Manchester Magistrates’ Court or any Manchester prisoners recalled into custody from that date.

the past two years, a total of 58 staff have retired from HMP Manchester. In addition, there have been staff leaving wing duties to undertake administrative roles in the prison, which has further reduced the levels of experienced officers working directly with the prison population.

4. 11 The prison now has around 66% of its current staff with less than two years’ experience. The Board has also been concerned at the relatively low retention rate of new officers entering the Prison Service.
5. 12 The violence reduction team has introduced violence reduction forums, which staff and prisoners can attend to discuss what causes violence and how it can be reduced. The Board notes that the second forum was very well attended by prisoners and staff alike, and some meaningful discussions resulted from the session.
6. 13 There were eight deaths in custody recorded in the reporting year. It is understood that early indications are that six were due to natural causes, one was a suicide and one resulted from substance misuse. However, inquests into these deaths will need to be concluded before the cause of each can be confirmed. Key worker scheme
7. 14 A key worker scheme was introduced in May 2019 to provide prisoners with additional support, by designating an officer to each prisoner, to help with everyday issues.
8. 15 Sign-off on the key worker programme had not been attained at the time of writing this report. A further support visit has been arranged to assist Manchester in addressing issues with the process, which can only be rectified upon the introduction of the new profiles for the prison. 4.1 6 The prison appointed two key worker champions, to raise awareness of the process and to train prison staff. 4.1 7 The time of engagement between a prison officer and a prisoner is 45 minutes per week or one and a half hours over a fortnight. Whilst this is the expected time for engagement, the Board note the activity between officer and prisoner is not as effective as it should be. For example, prison officers are more likely to have a general conversation as opposed to meaningful conversation relating to the prisoners welfare and concerns. 4.1 8 A quality assurance process has been introduced, enabling staff to record interactions. 4.1 9 There has been a reduction on the number of complaints received by wing officers since the introduction of the key worker programme, Whilst the conversations are not addressing the appropriate issues (see (4.17) Recorded engagement had increased from 15% in October 2019 to 93% in January 2020.
9. 20 The key worker system is in its early stages, but indications have suggested that improvements can be achieved relating to a reduction in the number of complaints submitted, fewer questions from prisoners to senior managers when attending the wings, and a reduction in wing-related violence.
10. 21 As at January 2020, 98% of prisoners at the establishment had been allocated a key worker.

4. 22 The Board will continue to monitor the key worker process and assess the long-term aims, to improve prisoner confidence, build professional relationships with staff, build trust and progress interaction and family ties.
5. 23 As and when the prison receives sign-off, it will have attained the required standards to introduce rigid-bar handcuff use, PAVA spray and dynamic 1 on 1 defence techniques for their staff. Regime
6. 24 The Board HMP Manchester took the unusual step of writing directly to the Secretary of State for Justice Prisons, to raise its concerns about the regime. The purpose of the letter was to raise the increasing concerns of the Board about the ongoing and significant deterioration in the regime, and the negative impact on purposeful activity for prisoners at the establishment. The Board considered that the outcome for prisoners was inhumane, given that most were spending excessive hours in their cells.
7. 25 The notice below is an example of the information received by prisoners on a regular basis, to illustrate the restrictions imposed on them and their opportunities to engage in purposeful activity. MANCHESTER INFORMATION NOTICE REGIME CURTAILMENTS Due to operational requirements and staffing issues there will be a limited regime throughout the establishment on the afternoon of Tuesday 10 September. Essential services such as medication and visits will take place and every effort will be made to supply as full a regime as possible. Apologies for this inconvenience. GOVERNOR 9 September 2019
8. 26 During May 2019, the level of regime curtailment rose considerably. Full activity took place on only two days during the month, while the position throughout June, July and August remained broadly similar. During September, full activities took place on only two days. At the time of writing to the secretary of state, there had been no activity for prisoners in the afternoon throughout October, apart from provision for essential services. The situation did not improve materially during the rest of the reporting period.
9. 27 The Board has looked at available data but has been unable to ascertain whether the impact of the regime at this time had a direct impact on the increase in incidents of violence and of self-harm.
10. 28 The Board has obtained data, however, to support possible reasons to support these findings, and it is alarming to note that the percentage of time that prisoners spent in industrial duties during the reporting year was 39%, set against a target of 80%.

Section 6: Segregation/care and separation unit/specialist intervention

unit (SIU)

6 .1 The Board regularly attends the segregation unit as part of its core weekly duties and has fulfilled 100% attendance at segregation reviews throughout the reporting period; this also includes a short period which this report covers when the COVID- 19 pandemic was present.

6. 2 The professionalism of the staff and their respectful treatment of prisoners on the unit is frequently endorsed by prisoners attending the segregation reviews. Favourable comments captured by the Board in their paperwork record quotes by prisoners in respect of their fair treatment which is further endorsed by their improved behaviour during their time on the unit.

7. 3 The management of the unit, given its nature, does not go without incident, and during this reporting period there was one prisoner who remained on a ‘dirty protest’ for a lengthy period of time, causing distress and discomfort both to staff and other prisoners on the unit.

8. 4 The Board has also identified a number of prisoners spending long periods of time in segregation while awaiting a transfer to more specialist accommodation which was more in keeping with the risks associated with their poor mental health.

9. 5 During the year, a small number of prisoners did not attend their regular segregation reviews. This in the majority of cases was due to the fact that there was insufficient staff numbers available to unlock and safely escort the prisoner to the review, This situation was also hindered by periods of time where the unit was full to capacity and prisoners as there was a shortage of staff to deal with unlocking prisoners held on the unit.. The paperwork is always duly signed by a Board member, and the decision verbally communicated to the prisoner.

10. 6 As mentioned earlier, in items for the Governor, there have been several complaints from prisoners on the unit about being cold, because of either heating system failures or delays in repairs to broken windows – an example of the poor maintenance record at the prison. Officers have responded to these concerns by supplying blankets to prisoners. Specialist intervention unit

11. 7 The SIU is a small unit consisting of six cells. Its purpose is to retain prisoners who are centrally managed on Rule 55.

12. 8 At the time of writing this report, five prisoners were located on the SIU (which at the end of the reporting year reduced to three), and it was not anticipated that any additional prisoners would be arriving on the unit. The Board has observed the comprehensive management of these prisoners, and the support provided by other services within the prison – in particular, the increased access to psychology staff and the regular input by the mental health team.

13. 9 The Board recognises the improvements within the unit following the provision for prisoners to be afforded access to a shower and telephone call on a daily basis, where previously this had been permitted only three times a week.

6. 10 The Board is satisfied with the cleanliness, security and regime of the unit, and with the professionalism of the staff, who operate a regime in often challenging circumstances. The Board would highlight, however, the frustrations of staff who have expressed their concern about the time taken to complete computer duties, which then restricts their time spent with prisoners.

Section 7: Accommodation (including communication)

7 .1 As identified in recent Board annual reports, HMP Manchester is an ageing prison, and the Board is now witnessing, on a weekly basis, the poor condition of parts of the estate. 7 .2 Despite these barriers, the Board has acknowledged a number of improvements, specifically in relation to the heating system, water heating and shower facilities for prisoners. 7 .3 The Board regularly monitors the wings and has recorded a smaller number of cells that are not available for use compared with the previous reporting year. The number of cells out of use has continued to increase as a result of the prison population reducing, while preparing to become a category B establishment.

7. 4 A common theme has also been the infestation of vermin throughout the prison, an issue that was highlighted in last year’s Board report. While the intention of the prison was to commission a new contractor to manage the problem, it has instead maintained its use of Rentokil, with little reduction in the number of vermin seen on the wings; this has resulted in some prisoners placing barriers under their doors to prevent the access of vermin. 7.5 In its rota reports, the Board has also recorded the poor management of the bins outside of health care, which cater for all of the refuse created by prisoners in the top jail and HCC. Owing to the volume of refuse held in this area, all three bins are regularly full, resulting in excess refuse being left in bags at the side. This practice hinders the efforts to manage pest control across the prison estate.

8. 6 Some members of the Board have visited other prisons and noted that safer custody windows have been provided, physically to prevent litter, food and other objects being thrown from cell windows. The Board would fully support secure window replacement at Manchester, to address the issues immediately and provide a clean and healthy environment for its occupants. Reference has also been made in this report to the reduction in drug access with the fitting of such windows.

9. 7 The Board continues to be concerned about the lack of decent dining accommodation. We believe that prisoners should not be expected to eat their meals within close proximity to an open toilet in their cells, as is the case at Manchester.

10. 8 The Board has been made aware of plans to undertake modernisation of some areas; for example, the former area on I wing that was previously used for ‘slopping out’ creates an ideal space for a kitchen area for prisoners to prepare meals, offering them the opportunity to develop independence. The Board would welcome these measures should they come to fruition.

Section 8: Healthcare (including mental health and social care)

8 .1 HMP Manchester continues to operate and deliver an excellent healthcare service to the prisoners held within its care. A full complement of services is provided, including dentistry, optometry, podiatry and pharmacy services. 8.2 A total of 34,001 medical appointments were booked by prisoners throughout the last year, which is a significant increase on the previous reporting year, where 32 , 989 were recorded. 8.3 A total of 6, 215 appointments were recorded as ‘prisoners did not attend’. The Board has identified appointments being cancelled owing to a lack of prisoner escorts due to existing staffing resources, or prison operations resulting in appointments not being permitted. The Board acknowledges, however, that prisoners may not have attended appointments for other reasons, such as attending legal or family visits, attending work, or simply deciding not to attend.

8. 4 The prison is responsible for enabling healthcare services, but, while the Governor is committed to improving attendance at healthcare, the number of non-attendances remains high. The Board has concerns that getting prisoners to appointments is not seen as a priority, and prisoners are having to experience further delays for new appointments to be made, resulting in some experiencing periods of discomfort.
9. 5 A total of 101 clinics were cancelled over the reporting year, covering a range of services, including GP, nurse, smoking cessation, drug and alcohol, day care, dentistry and psychiatry.
10. 6 The establishment continues to perform above the national target percentage for mandatory drug testing. The statistics do, however, suggest that prisoners undertaking random testing are able to obtain drugs coming into the prison. Prisoners and mental health
11. 7 During the reporting year, the Board has noted a number of occasions where prisoners have been placed on constant watch for prolonged periods of time. Rota reports maintained by Board members evidence one prisoner being on constant watch for 14 weeks and 20 weeks (sometimes placed on intermittent watch), and another prisoner for a period of four weeks.
12. 8 During the reporting year, there have been a number of prisoners on constant observations for prolonged periods of time while awaiting transfer to a secure psychiatric hospital. These are the same prisoners as referenced in paragraph 8. The Board has observed four prisoners on prolonged constant watch (sometimes reduced to intermittent) for a period ranging from two to six months.
13. 9 These prisoners were waiting for a space in a secure psychiatric hospital owing to their poor mental health. As Manchester does not have the capability to care for such prisoners (for instance, forcefully giving medicine that the prisoner is required to take), the priority for healthcare staff was to ensure the prisoner’s safety until they could be cared for in a proper facility. On several occasions, however, the waiting time was a number of months, and prisoners’ health deteriorated rapidly as the prison was unable to provide the care that a psychiatric hospital could provide – not to mention that constant observations put a strain on prison staffing levels and morale.

8.1 0 For example, a prisoner who was on constant/intermittent watch for five months (up until his transfer) was referred by mental health staff in September 2019 and accepted to hospital in October of the same year, but only left the establishment in February 2020. The prisoner spent most of his time in segregation during this period because of his unpredictable and impulsive behaviour, and the Board observes that, while it may have been the only suitable location for that prisoner in the prison until transfer, the four-month wait in segregation under constant/intermittent watch was unfair and likely to have affected his wellbeing. 8.1 1 The Board would also draw attention to prisoners who, while not on constant watch, are nevertheless mentally unwell and are waiting, often months, for hospital beds. In particular, one prisoner was segregated on arrival in November 2019 owing to his violent behaviour, and remained in segregation until May 2020, rapidly deteriorating mentally – quite possibly because of the lack of appropriate care and from the detrimental effects of prolonged segregation. The prisoner was assessed by mental health staff in December and referred to a hospital in January. He was accepted in the same month but was only transferred in May 2020. 8.12 One prisoner was deemed to have learning difficulties, and the prison attempted to manage him as best they could until his health worsened; it was established by mental health staff in early 2020 that prison was not an appropriate environment for him. The prisoner spent prolonged periods in segregation owing to his violent behaviour while waiting for a space in psychiatric facility. He has been in prison since January 2019 and was referred to hospital in February 2020, when his behaviour became unmanageable in prison conditions. He left in May 2020. 8.13 The Board is therefore very concerned about the number of prisoners with extremely poor mental health who are at the prison. The prison environment can provide only limited therapeutic support and potentially exacerbates the mental health problems of such prisoners. Owing to their mental health issues, such prisoners often tend to turn to either violence or self-harm, often leading to prolonged segregation or constant watch, which further causes the prisoner to deteriorate mentally. Therefore, the Board concludes that waiting times to provide appropriate care for prisoners with mental health concerns are unacceptable. 8.14 There has been a reduction in the number of newly opened ACCT documents which has coincided with the establishment no longer receiving prisoners directly from local courts. 8.15 A multi-agency approach to prisoners on ACCT documents has been adopted, to include chaplaincy, mental health and substance misuse staff, and prison offender managers attending reviews, with strong lines of communication between agencies. 8.16 Prisoners on long-term open ACCT documents are asked if they would like family involvement, although the majority decline. 8.1 7 The prison received a visit from long-term high-security estate safer custody in September 2019, to review the ACCT process, and it was noted that there had been significant improvements. Manchester is currently training additional band 4 officers to undertake ACCT reviews, a recommendation suggested by the auditors. COVID- 19