Oakwood

The Board is concerned that there are ongoing recruitment and retention issues for staff working in prison mental health services when the demand is increasing. There is still a vacancy for a psychologist at HMP Oakwood and a number of roles are being covered by agency or bank staff. What does the Minister plan to do to improve this situation?

As the Board will be aware, healthcare provision for HMP Oakwood is commissioned by NHS England and delivered by Practice Plus Group (PPG). Mental Health Services have been subcontracted to the Midlands Partnership Foundation Trust (MPFT) by PPG. In respect of your concerns regarding mental healthcare vacancies, recruitment, and retention at HMP Oakwood, I would like to reassure the Board that NHS Commissioners monitor outcomes including resourcing. This includes the level of use of agency and bank staff along with recruitment and retention, and all issues are discussed at monthly Local Delivery Boards and Quarterly Contract review meetings. It is regrettable that the recruitment of a psychologist at HMP Oakwood remains challenging, however I am pleased to confirm that a Locum Psychologist will be recruited as a priority until this vacancy can be filled permanently. The psychology service staffing provision will be reviewed by MFPT to ensure it meets the requirement of the establishment.

The current commissioned capacity of the healthcare provision at HMP Oakwood does not appear to be sufficient to meet the needs of the current prison population, both in terms of physical and mental health. Could the Prison Service examine the current profile of the prison population at HMP Oakwood and address these concerns? For example, all transfers to a secure mental health facility at Oakwood exceed the 28-day stipulated timeframe (with reference to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) thematic review, ‘The Long Wait’, published in February 2024).

A full Health Needs Assessment has been commissioned and the outcomes from this exercise will provide clear indications for future direction and actions required to improve healthcare provision at HMP Oakwood. NHS Commissioners will continue to monitor contracts to ensure provision meets the needs of the population at the prison. The timeframes for mental health transfers is a national concern. This is actively monitored by NHS Commissioners who support escalation routes to ensure the timescales can be met, where possible. The Ministry of Justice is working with the Department of Health and Social Care to reform the Mental Health Act (1983) and introduce the Mental Health Bill in this parliamentary session. The Mental Health Bill sets out vital reforms to support people with severe mental illness in the criminal justice system with the aim of speeding up access to specialist inpatient care and ensuring that offenders and defendants with severe mental health needs are able to access appropriate and timely support in the most appropriate setting. The provisions include, but are not limited to, the introduction of a statutory 28-day time limit for the transfer of patients from prison to hospital. The time limit mirrors that introduced in NHS England’s good practice guidance, published in June 2021, starting at the point of an initial referral and ending at the point of the patient’s admission to hospital. This time limit, together with operational improvements, aims to reduce unnecessary delays and deliver swifter access to treatment.

The current commissioned capacity of the offender management unit (OMU), in terms of the numbers of probation officers and forensic psychological support at HMP Oakwood, does not appear to be sufficient to meet the needs of the current prison population. Could the Prison Service examine the current profile of the prison population at HMP Oakwood and address these concerns?

HMPPS notes the concerns of the capacity of the OMU and whether this is sufficient to meet the needs of the current prison population at HMP Oakwood. Probation Central Operations Support (COS) team have recently reviewed the prison’s probation staffing level against the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) target staffing model. The target staffing level was set at fourteen POMs to ensure adequate OMU provision and proposed changes will be considered via the National Operational Stability Panel (NOSP) in October 2024. With both the qualification of PQiPs (Professional Qualification in Probation) and the centralised recruitment of PQiPs in the West Midlands region, HMP Oakwood should achieve its target staffing by the end of December 2024. This will be continually reviewed to ensure it meets the demand of the prison population.

Since the implementation of the Prisoners’ Property Policy Framework in 2022, the Board still remains concerned that it is seeing a lack of adherence to the policy, particularly with missing property from incoming prisoners. This year, we received 440 complaints relating to other establishments, of which 257 (58%) were regarding property. Can this ongoing concern be addressed?

HMPPS appreciates the Board’s ongoing concerns about prisoners’ property, particulalry when a prisoner transfers establishments. The introduction of the digitally recorded Prisoner Escort Record (dPER) included a property section that accurately records the number and type of sealed property ‘owned’ by and transferred with the prisoner and an accurate record of property handover between different stakeholders. This is now embedded as business as usual. The digital process has assisted with investigations for property that is lost in transit with the transport suppliers, and complaints are reviewed monthly during formal meetings with transport suppliers. For property delay, in-line with the HMPPS Prisoner Property Framework, if the limit of items allowed in possession has been reached, and if there is no space on the Escort Vehicle to transport items safely and securely, then responsibility for transfer of any remaining items remains with the sending prison. Following the introduction of the Prisoners’ Property Framework, prisoners must comply with volumetric control limits, since any property within these limits will be transferred with them. This includes items which are exempt from volumetric control, such as legal papers. It is not possible to transfer with a prisoner all excess property which they might have accrued above these limits and any excess property outside of these limits will be transferred within four weeks. HMPPS is aware of the problems around property and continues to explore what further can be done.

The number of IPP-sentenced prisoners is continuing to rise at HMP Oakwood, with the current number standing at 101 (which has doubled in the past 12 months). The prison is to begin to hold progression panels for IPP prisoners (starting in April 2024), but resources remain unchanged. Would a reduction in the number of IPP prisoners currently held at HMP Oakwood be considered to enable those who are here to receive the attention they merit following the parliamentary review and subsequent response from the Ministry of Justice/Prison Service?

HMPPS is confident that the achievements of the the HMPPS IPP Action Plan has contributed to an overall reduction in the IPP population between June 2023 and June 2024. As part of the Plan, in February 2024, Phil Copple, the Director General of Operations at HMPPS commissioned each of the seven Area Executive Directors for England and Wales, as well as the Executive Directors of the Long-Term High Security Estate, the Women’s Estate and Contracted Prisons to develop operational IPP delivery plans and to begin delivering those plans from Summer 2024. These Delivery Plans directly target front-line delivery in support of helping those serving IPP sentences to work on and achieve the objectives within their sentence plans and move towards a future prospective safe and sustainable release, and when in the community, towards a future termination of their licence. At HMP Oakwood, the Head of Resettlement, in collabaration with probation staff, has established an IPP panel for prisoners nearing release. HMPPS will continue to monitor the progress of the IPP Action Plan and consult expert organisations and campaign groups to ensure that we are considering all options. The Board may also be aware that on 5 September 2024 the Lord Chancellor announced that from November 2024, anyone who was released on IPP licence five or more years ago and has spent at least the last two years of that period in the community without being recalled, will have their IPP licence terminated without the need for a review by the Parole Board. The Secretary of State will also have two new ‘Risk Assessed Recall Review’ powers. The first enables her to not reset the two-year period after someone is re-released from a recall. Secondly, she will be able to re-release people who have been recalled at any point without referring the case to the Parole Board. These measures will make an overall difference to the number of IPP prisoners held across the estate, including HMP Oakwood.

The Board is concerned by the widespread dissatisfaction among prisoners of the current food provision. How can the Director ensure that the issues raised are listened to and practical solutions are explored to try to reduce this level of discontent?

How can the Director ensure that standards during service at the serveries are consistently high (hygiene, PPE, timings, equipment working correctly)?

The serveries are monitored by managers, and when items are broken, they are repaired as soon as possible. Managers will challenge anyone who is not wearing PPE.

Could the Director work with the healthcare unit to try to ensure that a mental health professional is present during CSU GOoD reviews when the prisoner concerned has serious mental health concerns?

Although the use of body worn video cameras is very high during UoF incidents, how can the Director encourage officers to take advantage of the benefits of turning on their cameras early enough to capture the lead up to a UoF.

The Board approves of Level 2 English and Mathematics being mandatory for those who have not reached this level but is concerned at the inconsistencies in transferring prior attainment information from previous establishments. Can the Director look at ways to resolve this issue?

The Board continues to be concerned about complaints regarding property lost whilst at HMP Oakwood. Can the Director review whether there are sufficient resources to manage the internal movement of property?

HMPPS appreciates the Board’s ongoing concerns about prisoners’ property, particulalry when a prisoner transfers establishments. The introduction of the digitally recorded Prisoner Escort Record (dPER) included a property section that accurately records the number and type of sealed property ‘owned’ by and transferred with the prisoner and an accurate record of property handover between different stakeholders. This is now embedded as business as usual. The digital process has assisted with investigations for property that is lost in transit with the transport suppliers, and complaints are reviewed monthly during formal meetings with transport suppliers. For property delay, in-line with the HMPPS Prisoner Property Framework, if the limit of items allowed in possession has been reached, and if there is no space on the Escort Vehicle to transport items safely and securely, then responsibility for transfer of any remaining items remains with the sending prison. Following the introduction of the Prisoners’ Property Framework, prisoners must comply with volumetric control limits, since any property within these limits will be transferred with them. This includes items which are exempt from volumetric control, such as legal papers. It is not possible to transfer with a prisoner all excess property which they might have accrued above these limits and any excess property outside of these limits will be transferred within four weeks. HMPPS is aware of the problems around property and continues to explore what further can be done.

The Board is still receiving applications from prisoners who either do not understand the complaints/request system or feel that it is unfair. Could the Director look at heightening the awareness of this during the Induction process?

New campaign awareness posters and media are currently being designed to better inform prisoners of the complaints’ process and support services available. We currently have posters on the wings explaining that if the complaint is deemed a request, the prisoner will receive a rejection letter via the post. A copy of the request will then be sent to the relevant department to respond within three working days to the prisoner via the kiosk.

The discharge lounge has previously provided good support to prisoners who are due for release and require specialist healthcare support, but it is not currently available due to staff sickness and vacancies. There is ongoing recruitment but has the Director any influence to expedite the process?

During the reporting year, the Board made efforts to engage with Oakwood Media to produce a series of short programmes on the role of the IMB, which could be broadcast to prisoners. However, this has failed to materialise, despite our efforts. Could the Director help facilitate this to happen in the next reporting year?