Report on HM Prison Shotts

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland 1998

3. ACCOMMODATION AND ROUTINES

Accommodation

3.1 Prisoner accommodation was contained in four identically designed Halls each containing three flats with the flats in turn containing two sections that could be isolated by means of grille gates. The cells had integral sanitation, a wash-hand basin and electric power and fittings comprised a bed, chair, desk/drawer unit, small kettle, lockable wall mounted metal cabinet and a clothes hanging facility. Prisoners could have their own curtains and bedding and those who did not have the latter were supplied with standard prison sheets and blankets. Within each cell there was an area on the wall that had been designated as the space for posters/photographs but we noted that throughout the establishment there were cells where this rule was being disregarded; similarly, we found many instances of light fittings being covered with paper, plastic or cloth which, in addition to the security implications, presented a fire hazard.

3.2 Within each of the sections there was an ablutions area which contained two showers, a bath, a w/c, a urinal and two sinks. Also within each section was a room that contained a television and some chairs, with the television being capable of showing videos or satellite channels, both of which were controlled from a central point within each Hall. Prisoners had access to these rooms during recreation periods but the rooms were very spartan and dingy with various items of materials being used as curtains in an ineffective attempt to cut down the amount of light.

3.3 Each Hall also contained a recreation room which was located in the area originally designated as the Hall dining room; however, this facility was not in use in ‘A’ Hall and only limited access was available in ‘B’ Hall. At the time of our visit, all these areas were ill equipped and poorly furnished but we were pleased to note that plans were in hand to increase their use and improve the standard of decoration.

Comment

3.4 The standard of prisoner accommodation was good and in particular, we were satisfied with the standards of cleanliness in all the passageways and corridors. We do suggest, however, that staff should take steps to ensure that the local rule about where posters can be displayed is strictly adhered to and that none of the light fittings are covered over. We suggest also that the TV rooms in the sections should be refurbished and furnished with a sufficient amount of seating.

Routine

(i) Basic Routine

3.5 For mainstream prisoners, there was a progression system in place which started in ‘A’ Hall and offered opportunities to move to a slightly enhanced regime in ‘B’ Hall and finally to ‘C’ Hall. ‘D’ Hall was used to accommodate prisoners who had requested to be kept separate from other peers and this Hall operated its own separate routine – see paragraph 3.12.

3.6 For all prisoners, the routine was based on a 4½ day week. After an 0630 hours unlock, breakfast was followed by work parties at 0800 until 1200 hours with lunch being provided shortly thereafter. The afternoon working session ran from 1345 to 1600 hours, with the exception of Friday afternoon when there were no work parties and prisoners had association/recreation from 1400 to 1600 hours. Following the evening meal, recreation was available from 1830 hours until final lock-up at 2100 hours (although on a limited basis on canteen nights). Full details of the routine, including weekends, are contained at Annex 2.

3.7 On admission, each prisoner was provided with two full sets of kit though they were allowed to retain their own clothing which could be worn when not at work. Laundry bags were also provided and it was up to each prisoner to use this system to send his own items of prison clothing for laundering as often as he wanted, items sent to the laundry being returned the same day. One advantage of this system was that there was no need to provide kit changes, though within each Hall there were stocks of spare clothing to replace damaged or lost items. In addition to the main laundry facility - see paragraphs 7.12-15 - each Hall had its own industrial size washing machine which was operated by a passman and was used to wash prisoners’ personal clothing items. This could be used by prisoners to launder prison issue kit at weekends, when the main laundry facility was not operating.

3.8 Each Hall had six card telephones (two on each flat) and this ensured that prisoners had no problems about getting access. Prisoners also had access to the showers in the ablutions areas at any time outwith normal working hours. Every day there was the offer of a one hour’s exercise period which could be taken in the outdoor exercise yards adjacent to each of the Halls, though we noted that this might be constrained for those at the tail of the lunch queue in addition to which, the Sunday exercise period clashed with the Church service – see paragraph 6.78. Personal mail was being distributed in accordance with SPS procedures and within each Hall there was access to the canteen three times a week - see paragraphs 7.9-11. Evening Physical Education (PE) sessions were available one night a week for each Hall, with spaces not taken up being offered to prisoners from other Halls. Each Hall also had one day per week when prisoners could visit the Library (see paragraphs 6.57-58) and there was a daily supply of newspapers. Copies of Prison Rules were available in Hall and/or flat offices and each cell had its own copy of the Prisoners Information Pack.

(ii) Progression System

3.9 As noted above, prisoners on protection were located in ‘D’ Hall but for all other prisoners, the progression system operated on the basis that all admissions were located in ‘A’ Hall where a basic routine operated. Prisoners in that Hall attended regime activities such as work parties, PE and the Education Unit on the same basis as all other prisoners. However, during periods of recreation, they were locked behind the grille gates within their sections which meant that recreation consisted of cell association or watching television/video.

3.10 Prisoners who met a set of published criteria could progress to ‘B’ Hall after spending three months in ‘A’ Hall with no disciplinary punishments which involved the award of additional days on to their sentence. A list was maintained of all those who satisfied those criteria and who had indicated a willingness to progress but we noted that there then appeared to be a rather ad hoc arrangement for the actual selection process from the list when vacancies in the next Hall occurred. The main difference in the routine for ‘B’ Hall was that on each evening, the grille gates were opened for one flat on a rotational basis so that in addition to the TV room, when it was their turn prisoners could have cell association between the two sections of the flat or use the main recreation area. This facility was located on the ground floor of the Hall and contained the usual range of activities, including snooker and darts, though as mentioned earlier, plans were being developed to make those facilities more welcoming. Prisoners in ‘B’ Hall were also entitled to one additional hour’s visit per month.

3.11 A similar system operated for progression to ‘C’ Hall where the main difference in the routine was that the whole Hall was opened up during recreation periods and prisoners could have cell association in any part of the Hall as well as having access to some recreational facilities not available in the other Halls. Prisoners in this Hall were also entitled to a further additional hour’s visit per month.

3.12 The ‘D’ Hall population consisted of those prisoners who, because of the nature of their crime or because of problems with other prisoners, might be considered to be at risk if they remained in the mainstream (though it should be noted that, with a very small number of exceptions, those convicted of sexual offences had now been moved to HMP Peterhead). At the time of our inspection, the routine which operated in the Hall was the same as that in ‘C’ Hall though proposals were being formulated to provide an internal progression system that would match the proposed new system for the mainstream Halls - see paragraph 5.3.

Comment

3.13 Although a progression system was in place, our main concern was what there was very little difference between what was available in each of the Halls and consequently, there was little incentive to encourage prisoners to move on. Indeed, we shared the view expressed by many prisoners that not only was there very little to gain by moving up the system but also that there was little to lose by being downgraded.

3.14 We were advised, however, that a regime review had been undertaken within the establishment and that this included the introduction of a revised progression system which in turn, would include the creation of a drug free area at the top end of that system. This review also contained proposals for an improvement to the facilities available in and the decoration of the recreation rooms as a way of relieving boredom, particularly at weekends. We fully support the need for the early introduction of a revised routine but recommend that steps should be taken to ensure that the proposed new local progression system is based on more meaningful and opportunity-based differentials. We suggest also that the process whereby prisoners are selected for progression from the list of possible candidates should be based on clearly laid out and published criteria.

3.15 A number of other issues also gave some cause for concern. Firstly, in the report of our formal inspection of the NIC, we had recommended that there should be a policy which ensured that on transfer to their long-term prison of allocation, prisoners should be credited with time spent in the NIC and should not be disadvantaged in terms of subsequent progression. This recommendation had been accepted yet we noted that on admission to Shotts, all such prisoners except those who had spent more than 12 months in the NIC were being located in ‘A’ Hall and subsequently had to compete for places in ‘B’ Hall with other prisoners. We suggest, therefore, that in line with our earlier recommendation, there should be a review of the procedures for the location of prisoners from the NIC.

3.16 On the general issue of induction, we were greatly concerned to note that there was no separate area within ‘A’ Hall in which to locate such prisoners, which meant that they were being mixed in with prisoners who had either been downgraded to that Hall or whose general conduct within the establishment meant that they had not progressed beyond that stage. In our view, such an arrangement could have the effect of adversely affecting the behaviour and attitudes of well-intentioned prisoners at a vulnerable stage of a long sentence and for that reason, we are very firmly of the belief that there ought to be a separate induction section; this is discussed in more detail at paragraph 6.16.