Report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons on HM Prison, Penninghame 19974. Security , Discipline and Operations Security and Control 4.1 Being a Category 'D' establishment, security was both low key and unobtrusive but we were satisfied that it was nonetheless effective. Regular patrols took place throughout all the accommodation areas during the working day with windows being checked for any signs of tampering. As with other open establishments, reliance was placed on prisoners adopting a responsible attitude to their sentence and resisting any temptation to abuse the regulations. As noted at paragraph 3.3, there had been three recent absconds but that comparatively low number suggests that those procedures were generally satisfactory. 4.2 Appropriate control was being maintained on the movement and location of prisoners within the establishment grounds (which, of course, had no physical perimeter). Searching was carried out on a regular basis with one dormitory being searched daily, including a close examination of prisoners' personal lockers. Designated areas of the grounds were searched for contraband on two or three occasions each month and a full external check of all buildings was carried out every evening prior to lock up. Rub down and strip searches were carried out on a random basis on prisoners going to and returning from work, placements and leaves. External places of work were also subject to separate search from time to time by prison staff. 4.3 As a result of that searching activity, a total of eight weapons had been found in recent months. The prisoner on prisoner assault referred to at paragraph 3.3 had involved the use of a bladed weapon and while we noted that it had been the first such incident at Penninghame, it is a matter of concern that any weapons had been found in an open establishment and that violent behaviour had been recorded. 4.4 All breaches of discipline were properly reported and dealt with in the Governor's Orderly Room. We observed one such hearing and were satisfied that it was being conducted within guidelines and that the atmosphere throughout was correct. From a scrutiny of the records, we were also satisfied that disciplinary awards were consistent with the seriousness of the reported offences. The Acting Governor normally conducted such hearings and it was clear that the matter of maintaining discipline was being given the proper degree of importance. 4.5 In the twelve months prior to our inspection, two prisoners had been arrested by the police for offences committed outwith the establishment. Over the same period, a further fifteen prisoners had been returned to closed conditions for a variety of reasons. Examination of those cases confirmed that such administrative action was warranted and that management was conscious of the various needs of security, control and safety of the local community. 4.6 As is now our practice, we made some assessment of the degree of drug abuse within the establishment. Based on information received from various sources, we reached the conclusion that drug misuse was widespread amongst prisoners, anecdotal evidence which was supported by various drug finds which had been made during searches. The SPS drug dogs also visited the establishment on a regular basis and we noted that they had been successful in finding substances on a number of occasions. In addition, the establishment was due to commence Random Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) in February 1997 and we were satisfied that the necessary facilities and staff training would be completed in time to meet that deadline. (The issue of drug abuse within the establishment is discussed at greater length later in this report - see paragraphs 5.1-8.) Comment 4.7 Security and control systems currently in operation in Penninghame were generally satisfactory and were commensurate with a security category 'D' establishment. The numbers of absconds and failures to return from Home Leave were not excessive and indicated to us that proper control and assessment of risk were being carried out. However, we were concerned by the recent finds of weapons and have suggested to the Governor that more use should be made of metal detecting equipment together with rub down and strip searches. 4.8 Drug policy and procedures were well developed and the establishment was ready for the introduction of MDT. Contingency Plans 4.9 The establishment's contingency plans were examined and while they covered all the matters required by SPS HQ, we found that they were in need of updating. (This was raised with the Acting Governor who agreed to address the issue.) 4.10 We also suggested that the provision of simplified checklists would make the plans more user-friendly. Liaison with the local emergency services was, however, being given sufficient priority - for example, sound relationships existed with the local police and fire brigade. Prisoners Grievance Procedure 4.11 Since the introduction of the Grievance Procedure (GP) scheme, very few cases had been raised formally - the vast majority of complaints being dealt with by Personal Officers without the prisoners needing recourse to the formal procedure. That said, all GP cases which were raised were being dealt with in accordance with standard procedures and all details were being properly recorded on SPIN. Meetings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) were chaired by either the Deputy Governor or the Resources and Services Manager and all staff in the establishment were available for ICC membership. GP6 cases - ie confidential access to the Governor - were also being dealt with in the proper manner with no other member of staff having access to the complaints form. Gate 4.12 The Gate was located at the entrance to the main building and was well placed to carry out the necessary control of all movement. It was staffed on a full time basis by an Officer who was responsible for maintaining a record of all movements and other routine information. Within the Gate area there was a key safe and we were satisfied that the appropriate security requirements were being observed in relation to the keeping and issuing of keys. The various books which were kept there were also up to date and well maintained. 4.13 Fire and staff alarm indicators were located in the area as were the call alarms from the various dormitories. The Gate also functioned as a communications centre and the base for the internal and vehicle radio systems and a copy of the establishment's contingency plans was located in the area. There was a SPIN terminal which produced a daily population list which, inter alia, was used as a checklist in the event of a fire evacuation - see paragraph 7.38. Comment 4.14 The Gate area was appropriately located and the necessary functions were being carried out. We were pleased to note the business like atmosphere in the area and were satisfied that the various systems and procedures were working well. Reception 4.15 The reception was located in the main building and was staffed by one Officer on early and late shifts. The actual reception area was small but adequate for the size of the prisoner population though there was a shortage of storage space. Prisoners were therefore encouraged to retain only essential items and return surplus property to their home. Even then, however, there was still inadequate space in the store, with the result that some property was being kept in the roof space of one of the lodges. This is far from being a satisfactory arrangement and we suggest that there should be a review with the aim of finding a more appropriate solution. Prisoners' valuable property was stored in the General Office. 4.16 Because the prison did not accept admissions direct from the Courts, all documentation was relatively straightforward and was being properly maintained. Admissions normally arrived in the mornings and in the months immediately prior to our inspection the numbers had been as low as three per month but had now risen to an average of seven per week. 4.17 There was no laundry or shower facility within the reception area but there were adequate facilities elsewhere in the establishment. As part of the reception process, prisoners were issued with bedding (if they did not provide their own) and towels, after which they were allocated a dormitory and given details of their induction programme - see paragraphs 6.1-3. A prisoner passman assisted by cleaning the facility but was not involved in any of the administrative functions. 4.18 Liberations had their personal belongings checked in advance and if not being uplifted by relatives or friends, were issued with an appropriate travel warrant. Prisoners being transferred to other establishments (other than for disciplinary reasons) or to a Training for Freedom hostel made their own way using public transport. Comment 4.19 With the exception of storage, we were satisfied that all reception functions were being carried out in a proper manner.
|
