 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
| > What We Do > Justice > HMIP |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
10.1 During the course of our inspection, we met with a number of prisoner groups representing all categories of prisoners held in the establishment. As is our practice, we have recorded their views as they were put to us, though this should not be taken to imply that the Inspectorate is in full agreement with every point raised. However, where this report covers any of the comments in more detail, the relevant paragraph numbers are shown.
10.2 Standards. The general view put forward in all groups was that by comparison to other prisons, standards at Kilmarnock were much higher. There was a relaxed atmosphere, the facilities were better, the establishment was as a whole much cleaner and there was less tension and confrontation. Cellular accommodation was generally of a higher standard, with the vast majority of prisoners enjoying single cell accommodation.
10.3 Relationships between staff and prisoners. It was also the generally held view that these were excellent and that each treated the other with respect. There was a feeling that many of the staff still lacked the level of professionalism and expertise that staff had in other SPS establishments but it had been noticed that in recent times, staff were very much more in control. Some concerns were expressed about staffing levels in the Wings as it was felt that they were not always able to cope with what they were asked to do, especially on those occasions when there was only one PCO available. Staff were, however, considered to be friendly and helpful - paragraphs 4.8 and 9.55.
10.4 Safety. Prisoners also described the prison as being a relatively safe place with no bullying or intimidation. We were told also that the extensive use of CCTV cameras throughout the establishment added to their feelings of personal safety - paragraph 3.2 and Annex 2.
10.5 The amount of time out of cell for all categories of prisoners was greater than anyone had experienced in any other establishment but we were told that the fairly limited recreational facilities meant that boredom could quickly settle in, especially at weekends. Prisoners were, however, looking forward to the imminent introduction of in-cell televisions - paragraphs 5.5 and 5.11.
10.6 The availability of drugs was said to be no better than in any other SPS establishment and we were told that there was very little injecting. There was, however, criticism of the facilities available for those who wanted help in coming off drugs – paragraphs 4.12-36.
10.7 Detoxification facilities were described as being very poor and whilst there was praise for the work done by the prison's Drugs Counsellor, it was said that having only one such member of staff was insufficient for addressing the problem. It was claimed also that the help available in other SPS establishments was better than at Kilmarnock – paragraphs 4.32-34.
10.8 Sentence Planning was the subject of much criticism. It was acknowledged that every prisoner had a Personal Officer and that regular narratives on each prisoner were written. However, we were told that these narratives were sometimes written with no prior discussion with the prisoners concerned and the general view was that staff did not know enough about the scheme. As a result of these perceived inadequacies in the scheme, prisoners said that in terms of progression, they did not know what was happening to them in the future. Similarly, we were told that whilst some programmes were available, these were insufficient to meet prisoners' needs, there was little discussion with prisoners regarding their needs and there were no pre-release arrangements - paragraphs 6.15-23.
10.9 Employment and wages. We were told that not everyone had a job and that those who did were not always busy in the worksheds. On the positive side, however, the comparatively very high wages were welcomed by all - paragraphs 6.49-57.
10.10 Food was regarded as being of good quality and prisoners were happy with the quantity they received and with the range of choices on offer, particularly the vegetarian and healthy eating options. The only complaint was that the food often lay in the serveries for lengthy periods of time whilst number checks were being carried out and this frequently resulted in a deterioration in quality - paragraphs 7.1-7.
10.11 Visits. There was general praise for the number of visits that prisoners could have and the location of the prison made for relatively easy access. It was claimed, however, that the processing of visitors could take a considerable length of time and the view was that there was too much searching of visitors. Other criticisms were about the inadequacy of the facilities for children, the poor acoustics in the visits room, the lack of a visitors' information leaflet and the fact that although the visits room was frequently under-used, there was no leeway to allow visits being taken to be extended - paragraphs 6.77-85.
10.12 Access to medical services was described as slow and difficult. It was claimed that you could wait for up to three days before being seen by the MO and that there was an extremely long waiting list to see the dentist. Mental health services were also considered to be in need of improvement - paragraphs 8.14-20, 8.46-52 and 8.53-58.
10.13 The amount of access to PE was considered to be very good but there was criticism of the state of the outdoor grassed football pitch and the size of the weights room - paragraphs 6.58-65.
10.14 Access to education was also considered to be satisfactory and remand prisoners confirmed that they were given the opportunity to participate - paragraphs 6.66-70.
10.15 The system for use of telephones came in for universal praise with prisoners completely happy with the amount of access and the fact that there were no restrictions on the amount of money they could have in their account. They were also very happy with the PIN system – paragraph 5.9.
10.16 Canteen arrangements were praised, again because of adequate access whilst the range of stock held was also considered to be excellent - paragraphs 7.8-10.
10.17 We shared many of the views expressed by prisoners – for example, in areas such as standards staff/prisoner relationships, safety and time out of cell. On the issue of drugs, we were concerned about the relatively high number of prisoners who were testing positive and whilst we acknowledge that the prison has only been open for a year, we are firmly of the view that more needs to be done to tackle the drug misuse problem. Similarly, we have expressed some disappointment about the sentence planning arrangements and we did find some evidence that not all prisoners were fully occupied in the worksheds. We agree that the food was good but have suggested that the delivery arrangements to the Houseblocks should be reviewed.
10.18 As regards visits, we have offered a number of suggestions for improvements but found no evidence to support the view that visitors were being over-searched. Likewise we did not consider that access to medical services was slow and we felt that mental health services were satisfactory. We did fully share the views expressed about PE, telephones and canteen but we have made some suggestions for improvements in the provision of education.
10.19 Supplies of the complaints forms were held in the Houseblocks, where the records were also maintained. From a scrutiny of those records, we were satisfied that comprehensive and detailed responses were being provided to prisoners and that the forms were being processed within the prescribed timescales. We were satisfied also that proper confidentiality was being maintained in cases where prisoners were lodging complaints directly to either the Director or the MO. A separate record was being maintained for cases that proceeded to the Internal Complaints Committee and again, all procedures for dealing with such cases appeared to be in order.
10.20 There was an internal audit system in place to ensure that the system was operating properly, whilst a monthly statistical return gave summary details of cases raised. In addition, quarterly statistical returns were made to SPS HQ.
< 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.
