APPENDIX 5
Supplementary note by HM Prison Service
EXTRACT FROM A LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE
COMMITTEE
CHECK OF
KEY REGISTER
John Podmore undertook to return to you (Q558)
as to whether the key register was formally checked on entering
the establishment. Some confusion may have been caused in the
use of terms. The straightforward answer is that the key register
was not checked. The key register would not, however, have been
the most effective means for the search team to establish the
extent to which Blantyre House staff left keys available following
the 8.30 pm roll call. This would be done by checking the gate
book.
As John Podmore said at (Q553) he took with
him on the search a governor who had written the key systems for
Blantyre House. Mr Shipton spent time at the gate with the Blantyre
House gatekeeper going through the key systems in his efforts
to locate the Healthcare Centre keys. He checked the key safe
(press), gate book and supplementary keys. (This is documented
in Appendix 1 to John Robinson's report into the conduct of the
search).
Examining the key register would not have done
this. The key register, which is checked quarterly, is a formal
record of keys held by the establishment setting out, by key type,
how many are on issue and how many held in stock. It is not a
document which pinpoints the availability of a particular key
at any given time.
SEARCH OF
LOCKED CUPBOARD
John Podmore also undertook to confirm his explanation
(QQ627-8 and QQ692-5 of the transcript). The search of this area
was undertaken using prison dogs trained in detecting drugs, arms
and explosives. The cupboard was locked, and would, as part of
the searching strategy, as it was a communal area, only have been
opened if one of the dogs had indicated any traces of drugs, ammunition
or explosives. Where cupboards or desks are unlocked it is standard
practice to search them manually, hence the discovery of cash
in the open desk in the chaplaincy suite.
ESCAPES/ABSCONDS
Martin Narey also undertook to check on escape
and abscond figures for Blantyre House (Q657). There were two
absconds from Blantyre House in the 18 months leading up to 5
May, and there have been five absconds since 5 May. There was
an attempted escape by three prisoners from Blantyre House in
December 1999 and there has been one escape since 5 May.
INSURANCE
Mr Cawsey disputed (Q654) Martin Narey's description
of the number of prisoners without valid car insurance. Martin
Narey was quoting from the Report of the investigation into the
Management of HMP Blantyre House, where you will see that precise
detail is provided at 9.2 (pages 33 to 36 of the report). The
report's conclusion at 9.5 (iv) is: "Of the 22 prisoners
using cars at Blantyre House, 10 did not possess valid insurance
policies that recognised their status as prisoners. Two MOT certificates
were also missing." The audit to verify that insured prisoners
had notified their insurers of their status (ie that they were
serving prisoners) revealed that eight prisoners had failed to
make this disclosure.
WORK PLACEMENTS
Martin Narey undertook to check the case raised
of a prisoner whose work placement had been stopped (Q662). The
Committee might find it helpful to have a precise explanation
of the outcome of the review of work placements at Blantyre House.
Mr Delaney was employed at Frontier Pictures Limited. This placement
was found by the prisoner and is 20 minutes travelling by car
from Blantyre House. When all Blantyre House work placements were
reviewed, this was the only work placement that was terminated.
The company is run by associates of the prisoner, and there is
no schedule of work and therefore no realistic means for the external
security officer to carry out ad hoc checks. When earlier checks
had been made, the prisoner was not at the office, but was contacted
by mobile telephone. He was only ever 15 minutes away, which did
not appear to square with the job description.
The only other temporary cancellation of a work
placement, has been with the distribution company called Sunburst.
At the time of the review, two prisoners, Mr Smart and Mr Saywell,
were employed at Sunburst. Although, after a temporary cancellation,
the work placement was reinstated. Mr Smart has subsequently been
discharged and Mr Saywell found other employment.
The Director General is concerned that the Committee
has gained the impression that a large number of prisoners were
affected. For example, at Q191 of the transcript of the oral evidence
given by prisoners at Blantyre House on Tuesday, 17 October, reference
is made to work being stopped. The prisoner referred to here is
Mr Houghting. In this case, the placement was not ended by the
prison, but by a new manager at the company who ended the arrangement.
A contributory factor may have been Mr Houghting's false statement
on his insurance.
At Q198 of the transcript, Mr Bertram says:
"Before I got stuffed into Unipart, I was a team leader on
the railways, responsible for a dozen men." He was working
with Comatec Limited, and the company still employs prisoners
from Blantyre House. Mr Bertram himself asked to work for Unipart.
No work placement was cancelled.
Reference has also been made to a work placement
(Mr Dean) in a tattoo parlour in Woking having been regarded as
unsuitable. Although this work placement was regarded as raising
issues of public acceptability, Mr Dean's equipment (confiscated
during the search) was released to enable him to continue his
work placement until his eventual discharge. We understand that
Mr Dean continued as a tattooist there after his release.
EVIDENCE GIVEN
AT BLANTYRE
HOUSE
It is not, of course, for the Home Office to
make any amendments to the transcript of that evidence, but I
make some factual comments below.
TRANSCRIPT OF
EVIDENCE GIVEN
BY PRISONERS
Family days at Blantyre House have been postponed
until April 2001 (QQ 167-8). This decision was only taken after
consultation with prisoners, who, generally, expressed a preference
for community visits. Family visits are used less frequently in
the winter months in any event, and the gap will allow the prison
to address some health and safety issues.
The impression is given (QQ183-5) that selection
criteria no longer apply for Blantyre. That is not the case. Senior
staff at Blantyre House have recently held a meeting with five
prisons in the area, and the selection procedure remains based
on an identified resettlement need.
Reference is made to Principal Officer Collard.
He was given the choice, and chose to move to residential activities.
TRANSCRIPT OF
EVIDENCE GIVEN
BY MEMBERS
OF BOV
AND OTHERS
On the night of the search (Q113) vans were
only available to have moved a maximum of 14 prisoners at one
time.
It is perhaps worth clarifying that the education
provided at Blantyre House (Q121 and Q147-8 of the transcript)
is by contract: it is for the Prison Service to decide the content
of the programme, and for the governor to retain responsibility
for the grounds on which temporary release is given. This is an
authority that cannot be delegated to the education department.
Clare Checksfield
27 October 2000
| 
