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

10. Prisoners

Prisoners' Perceptions

10.1 During the course of our inspection, we met with prisoners both in formal groups and informally on an individual basis. We have recorded the views which were put to us but that should not be taken to imply that we were in full agreement with every point raised. However, where we have addressed the issues in question, the relevant paragraph numbers are recorded. The main issues raised are as follows.

10.2 Although prisoners were generally happy with the number and quality of visits which they could have, they felt that not enough was being done to help those visitors without private transport get to the prison. For example, the nearest railway station was 15 miles away and it was suggested that the prison should provide a bus service for that part of the journey - paragraphs 6.41-49.

10.3 There was also criticism of the number and quality of the outside placements available, with suggestions that the prison should be prepared to look further afield than the local village of Newton Stewart. It was claimed also that priority for placements was always being given to those serving a life sentence - paragraphs 6.20-25.

10.4 PE facilities also came in for criticism on the grounds that the weights/fitness equipment was very old and was housed in a far from adequate room. It was claimed also that for H & S reasons, prisoners were not allowed out for mountain bike runs without a staff member being present yet they were allowed to go out on their own for runs. Generally speaking, there was criticism of the need for staff supervision for outdoor activities - the point being made that any prisoner who wanted to abscond had plenty of other opportunities to do so - paragraphs 6.34-40.

10.5 As regards accommodation, the view was expressed that there were too many beds in each of the dormitories and too few single rooms - paragraphs 3.4-10. It was claimed that management in the prison were always willing to make exceptions to the criteria for getting a place in one of the lodges when it suited their purpose.

10.6 Other issues which were raised included boredom during the recreation periods - see paragraph 6.13 - the lack of any proper sentence planning scheme (with claims that the folders had been issued just prior to our inspection) - see paragraphs 6.4-9 - and the loss of interest by prisoners in the House Committee on the grounds that every suggestion which they raised was rejected - see paragraph 9.31.

Comment

10.7 We had sympathy with prisoners' views on the number and quality of outside placements and at paragraph 6.23 we have suggested that management should consider taking in a much wider geographical area. Similarly, we shared the concerns expressed about the lack of space in the dormitories (paragraph 3.4) though the new accommodation should help ease that situation and at the same time improve the recreation facilities on offer.

10.8 As regards the visit arrangements, we do not think that it would be a practical option for the prison to supply a transport service to the railway station. We did note, however, that there was the offer of a free weekend bus journey to and from Glasgow and an undertaking has been given to include details of the Sacro sponsored bus in the next reprint of the visitors' information leaflet (paragraphs 6.46 and 6.54).

10.9 In our opinion, the PE facilities represented a great improvement on what had been available in the past and we fully support the policy of staff accompanying prisoners on outside activities. We were satisfied with the operation of the sentence planning scheme (paragraphs 6.4-9) and we support the continuance of the House Committee (paragraph 9.31).