Report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons on HM Prison, Penninghame 1997

5. Drug Abuse

5.1 Our 1992 inspection report had made little overt reference to drug abuse within the establishment. Nevertheless, a (self reporting) survey of individuals admitted to Penninghame in 1993 and 1994 had indicated that 80% of them had engaged in illicit drug abuse at some point during their prison sentence. Additionally, over much the same period, it was known that at least five prisoners had required referral to drug rehabilitation centres following their release, with three of those individuals also admitting that they had continued to inject intravenously whilst in open conditions. Subsequent evidence, including a number of drug finds and increasing requests for help from prisoners and their families, completed the picture of a slowly deteriorating situation.

5.2 In response to this problem, Management had embarked on a series of initiatives to counter the effects of this insidious danger. A comprehensive policy had been implemented in July 1995 which, in addition to seeking to ensure that the prison became as drug free an area as possible, also sought to provide a range of comprehensive treatment, counselling and education which was comparable with that on offer in the community. Whilst the possession of illegal drugs or injecting/smoking equipment continued to carry the penalties of criminal prosecution and a return to closed conditions, prisoners had also been required to make a written declaration, prior to admission, that they would supply a detailed description of any previous drug abuse. Additionally, they had to agree to undergo a medical examination and provide a sample for urinalysis, as well as providing a sustained commitment to subsequent drug education programmes. In turn, the prison recognised the need to provide appropriate medication to alleviate withdrawal symptoms, together with counselling on harm minimisation and appropriate liaison with community based drug agencies. (See also paragraph 1.3 at Annex 1.)

5.3 A Drug Liaison Committee had been established and was meeting regularly on a quarterly basis. Its membership has included Management, Medical and Social Work representation, a community psychiatric nurse (CPN) from Stranraer, a local Drugs Development Officer and a representative from Dumfries and Galloway Police. During our inspection, we examined the minutes of the Committee meetings and noted that additional drug testing facilities had been made available for those who volunteered to take part in drug programmes after admission. As noted earlier, MDT was to be introduced in February 1997, as part of an SPS wide policy initiative.

5.4 During 1995 a total of ten prisoners had been returned to closed conditions, following their involvement in drug abuse; the corresponding figure for 1996 was nine. There had also been a number of drugs finds, including one in mid 1996 which uncovered heroin, cannabis and temazepam within the prison grounds. Five prisoners had subsequently been charged by the police and returned to closed conditions as a result of their involvement in that incident.

Comment

5.5 We acknowledge that the very open nature of the prison grounds and the regime make it difficult to control the supply of drugs. Nevertheless, based on evidence obtained from medical staff, Discipline Officers and prisoners, we were disappointed to learn of the apparent scale of the problem. We were also dismayed to hear, anecdotally, of a possible move away from the use of cannabis (which remains in the system for much longer and is therefore easier to trace) towards heroin because of the imminent introduction of MDT. This is a trend which we have encountered elsewhere.

5.6 Nevertheless, it was pleasing to examine the comprehensive drugs policy which had been set in motion by the former Governor I/C and his staff as it reflected a pragmatic and multi-disciplinary approach to a growing problem. However, it was of more recent concern that difficulties over funding had led to the loss of the services of the CPN; whether that latter situation was temporary or permanent was unclear, but we had fears that it might diminish the impetus which hitherto had been created.

5.7 It is hard to predict what effect the introduction of MDT is likely to have, especially at a time when the population is also expanding. However, the penalties incurred by positive testing will almost certainly be different to those which might be experienced in closed establishments. For example, those not being prosecuted are likely to be denied home leaves, local leaves or attendance at outplacement work in the community. If a number of prisoners was so involved at the one time, it could greatly alter the relaxed atmosphere which is central to this open establishment.

5.8 Equally, in the coming months we believe that management must continue to give considerable priority to the intention and practical realisation of repatriating as many drug free individuals to the community as possible. This would further enhance the central aim of the regime, which is to prepare prisoners for release via the work and outplacement opportunities. In our opinion, individuals who manage to stay drug free, even for comparatively short periods (eg 3-6 months) after release, are more likely to break previously established patterns of recidivism. For that reason, we suggest that there would be considerable merit in working towards the funding of a civilian addictions worker for the establishment in the very near future. (Medical staff were already indicating that on present estimates, there was enough work to occupy such an individual for at least one or two full mornings per week.)