 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
| > What We Do > Justice > HMIP |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
7.1 Staffing in the kitchen consisted of a Catering Manager and seven Cooks, supported by a work party of 27 prisoners. Work party vacancies were advertised through the Sentence Planning Unit and following clearance of the applicants by the Health Centre, the prisoners were interviewed by the Catering Manager. Prisoners were paid at an hourly rate of 72p and were expected to work a five-day week, though there was the possibility of overtime. In addition to the standard wage, performance pay at the rate of £1 per day was available. Work in the kitchen was split into four different areas and each prisoner in the party worked a week in each area on a rotational basis. All prisoners were given food hygiene training before being allowed to start work and there were opportunities to complete nationally recognised, certificated courses. At the time of our inspection, 12 prisoners were undergoing such training, with their progress being monitored by an external verifier who visited the prison once a week.
7.2 The kitchen had been designed in a very efficient manner with various access points ensuring that there was no cross contamination of foodstuffs. Storage and freezer spaces were adequate for the needs of the kitchen and complied with current regulations. As would be expected of a facility that had only been open for a year, all the cooking equipment was very modern and there were no problems about break-downs or repairs. The kitchen had recently been inspected by the local Environmental Health Officer who had issued a satisfactory report. Given the status of the prison, the SPS's Catering Adviser had no inspectorial role. Unlike other SPS establishments, Kilmarnock was not tied to any central contracts for food, which meant that the Catering Manager was free to negotiate price deals with any supplier.
7.3 A four week menu cycle was in operation but the range of meals on offer was regularly reviewed in the light of comments received from prisoners. There was a range of choices for each of the two main meals and in every meal there were vegetarian and healthy eating options. All medical and religious diets were catered for. Prisoners in Houseblock 1 made their choices one week in advance but for Houseblock 2, where there were more regular changes in the prisoner population, choices were made each morning and the details passed to the kitchen. When the food was ready, temperature readings were taken in the kitchen and the food was then transported to the Wings in heated trolleys and distributed from serveries in those areas. Immediately prior to serving the meals, further temperature readings were taken. One member of the kitchen staff was in attendance at one of the serveries for every meal. A member of the senior management team sampled a meal every day in the kitchen and the MO made regular visits to inspect the premises. There was a food comment/complaints book at each servery and there was a separate food Prison Information and Activity Committee (PIAC) – see paragraph 9.25 - which met monthly.
7.4 We were very pleased to note that, perhaps uniquely in the SPS, all meal times were in accordance with SPS Operating Standards. The kitchen worked on the basis that it would deliver the meals to the Houseblocks 30 minutes in advance of the scheduled meal times so that everything would be ready for serving at the appropriate time. We noted, however, that meal times were frequently delayed because of problems in reconciling the prisoner number checks – see paragraph 3.4 - which meant that the food could be lying longer than intended before it was served. Prisoners to whom we spoke said that the food was very good but that those frequent delays meant that on many occasions, it had lost a lot of its quality by the time they got it. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a review of the arrangements for the delivery of food to the Houseblocks so that it is at optimum quality at the time of serving. (This could include giving consideration to the possibility of delaying the start of the food delivery run until after the numbers check had been verified.)
7.5 In addition to its primary function of preparing meals for the prisoners, there was a training kitchen area where meals were prepared for staff and other visitors to the establishment. The preparation of these meals was part of the training for the prisoners undergoing the external qualification and was undertaken under the supervision of a member of the catering staff. During the course of our inspection, we sampled meals in this 'Bistro' and were pleased with the quality of the food on offer.
7.6 We were impressed with the catering operation. The quality of the meals and the range of choices were excellent and it was particularly pleasing to note that meals were being served at reasonable times of the day. All of those involved in the food preparation and serving arrangements were keen to maintain high standards, as evidenced perhaps by the fact that there was a weekly prize for the cleanest trolleys and serveries in each Houseblock.
7.7 As noted above, we had some concerns about the amount of time that the food could lie in the serveries before being distributed to the prisoners. We have also written to the Director suggesting that steps be taken to ensure that every food handler outwith the kitchen is given health and hygiene training.
7.8 There were two canteens in the establishment, one in each Houseblock and the administration of this function was undertaken by two full-time and two part-time members of staff. Convicted prisoners had access twice a week whilst remand prisoners could make three visits. The actual facilities were very secure and extremely well stocked with a range of goods that were regularly reviewed to meet prisoners' requests. The entire operation was computerised with the bar code on the prisoners' identity cards being used to confirm how much each individual had available to spend and the bar codes on the goods themselves being used for stock control. Once prisoners had made their purchases, they were provided with a receipt that they signed and retained, with a copy also being held by the canteen officer. All transactions were on a credit rather than a cash basis and there was no limit on how much a prisoner could spend on any one visit, subject to him having the appropriate amount of cash in his account. There was a price list attached to each canteen door with copies in the residential Wings.
7.9 In addition to the main canteen facility, there was a sundry purchase scheme that operated on the basis that prisoners could order items via a catalogue for a major national retailer. Prisoners who wished to use this service completed a form detailing the items in question and the form was then passed to the Security Unit for approval. The approved goods were then delivered to the establishment by the retailer.
7.10 We were very impressed with the entire canteen operation, which was being conducted from well-stocked and secure premises, which maximised the use of modern technology for the benefit of both prisoners and the establishment. We did note, however, that some prisoners with damaged swipe cards were able to purchase items with no apparent check being made of their identity. We suggest, therefore, that appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that the system is not abused.
7.11 There was a small central laundry, which was responsible for bulk items such as bedding, towels, PE kit and catering clothing, with all contaminated and soiled laundry being managed in a safe and hygienic manner. This facility was well resourced with modern machinery, including washers, dryers and an ironing press and provided employment for ten prisoners. As it was operating below its design capacity, it was able to provide a contract service to a local residential nursing home.
7.12 In addition to the main facility, each Wing had a washing machine, drier and ironing facilities for prisoners' personal items of clothing.
7.13 We were satisfied that the laundry service provided all prisoners with their statutory entitlement to clean clothing and that a high standard of general hygiene was being maintained throughout the establishment. We were also encouraged to note that training had been organised for the Officer in charge of the main laundry.
7.14 The prison buildings, which had been completed about a year prior to inspection, had been constructed to current prison building standards though, as indicated at various parts in this report, we were of the opinion that some of the working areas were rather small and cramped. During the first year of operation, there had been the inevitable problems of design and equipment failures associated with most large buildings. However, it was to the credit of the Estates staff that they had overcome those problems and we were satisfied that the estate was being maintained in a very good condition with no repair items seen to be requiring attention.
7.15 However, in addition to the fact that many of the rooms appeared to be very small for their purpose, we had some concerns about room temperatures, which appeared to create an uncomfortable working environment in some areas, the general lack of air conditioning and the fact that in some rooms there were no openable windows. Other areas of concern included the slow operation of hydraulic doors in the Houseblocks and the claustrophobic atmosphere in the Health Centre exercise yards. These concerns and a number of other issues were recorded in a comprehensive report that was given to the Director and we were pleased to learn that due consideration had been given to the points raised and that where appropriate, remedial action was being taken.
7.16 The buildings had been constructed to current standards of insulation with adequate attention having been given to energy economy. We were surprised to find that the Chapel was heated electrically and separate from the main prison heating system. We were, however, subsequently advised that because the area in question was frequently unoccupied, this was in fact the most cost effective system. We noted also that although some low energy lamps had been fitted, this had not been done throughout the establishment but we were subsequently assured that the completion of this task was now being prioritised.
7.17 As with the buildings, at the end of our inspection a comprehensive energy report was passed to senior management for action to be taken as appropriate.
7.18 The establishment had appointed an H & S Officer but the local H & S policy had been produced in the form of Director's Rules (see paragraph 9.21). Whilst acknowledging that such documents were available, it was our opinion that they were not as readily accessible to staff as they should have been. We suggest, therefore, that consideration should be given to the possibility of producing a separate H & S policy document with copies being available on request to staff on a personal issue basis.
7.19 During the course of our inspection, we identified a number of H & S issues that in our opinion required attention. We, therefore, produced a comprehensive report that was passed to the Director and we are pleased to note that due consideration was given to the issues raised and that where appropriate, remedial action was taken.
7.20 The establishment's Fire Precautions Officer (FPO) was a member of the Estates team and the training he had received for his fire duties had involved undertaking a number of modules provided by an external training company. The normal training procedure for FPOs from other SPS establishments is for them to attend a course at the Scottish Fire Services Training School at Gullane, where they can participate in some practical hands-on training. We suggest, therefore, that consideration should be given to arranging for Kilmarnock's FPO to participate in such an event.
7.21 There was no separate Fire Committee but the FPO was a member of the establishment's H & S Committee. At the time of our inspection, he was the only person directly involved in fire precaution duties but he was in the process of recruiting a team of around 30 Fire Marshals from all parts of the prison to provide general assistance. Training for these individuals would be arranged as soon as the list of volunteers had been compiled.
7.22 Fire awareness issues formed part of every PCO's initial training course, including how to use the Short Duration Breathing Apparatus (SDBA) equipment. In addition, every two months all custody staff went through a refresher programme on how to put on this equipment and on an annual basis, each member of staff participated in an exercise that involved using the apparatus in a smoke-filled room. Two sets of SDBA equipment were held in each Houseblock, as well as in the Segregation Unit and the Health Centre.
7.23 With the exception of the smoke/heat detectors, the FPO was responsible for checking all the fire protection items of equipment on a regular basis and we were satisfied that proper records of these checks were being maintained. At present, these were being recorded manually but consideration was being given to introducing a computerised format. Checking the detectors was the responsibility of an external firm on a contractual basis, as was the maintenance of all hoses and hydrants. Because the building had been built to modern building standards, there was a network of smoke/heat detectors throughout the establishment and a fire suppression system had been installed in the kitchen.
7.24 Excellent relationships had been established with the local Fire Brigade, the members of which had visited the establishment for familiarisation visits. Plans were also being prepared for a joint training exercise involving staff from the prison and the brigade. Since the establishment opened, there had been a number of minor deliberate fires and the brigade was called to attend on every occasion. Proper procedures for dealing with the arrival at the Gate of fire vehicles were in place.
7.25 We were pleased to note that a number of evacuation drills had been undertaken in various parts of the establishment and that post-drill reports had been prepared in every case, so that lessons could be learned and if appropriate, procedures changed. This programme was ongoing.
7.26 It was clear that the whole issue of fire safety was being taken very seriously within the establishment and we were pleased to see that this was being further developed through the introduction of a team of Fire Marshals to assist in the whole process. We were also very impressed by the commitment being shown to staff training in this important area, including the extensive programme of fire evacuation drills.
7.27 We did, however, have one major area of concern, which related to the fire escape arrangements for staff working on the upper floor of the Gate complex. There was only one staircase into and out of that part of the building and in our opinion, that appeared to create a potentially serious hazard in the event of a major fire in this area. (During the course of our visit, staff working in that area expressed their concerns to us about their safety in the event of a fire.) We acknowledge that as this is a relatively new building, it must have passed all the necessary building checks before staff were allowed to work in it. We understand that consideration is being given to the possibility of creating some form of fire escape route through one of the other rooms in this area but we recommend that as a matter of priority, management should seek the advice of HM Fire Service Inspectorate on this matter.
7.28 As an interim measure, steps should be taken immediately to ensure that all staff working in that area are familiar with the use of fire extinguishers and that for those who are not, immediate training should be provided.
< Previous | Contents | Next >
The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.
For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.
