Report on HM Prison Shotts

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland 1998

10. PRISONERS

Prisoners’ Perceptions

10.1 During the course of the inspection, we met with a number of prisoner groups and we have recorded the views as they were put to us but as with the staff group, this should not be taken to imply that the Inspectorate is in full agreement with every point raised. Where this report covers any of the comments in more detail, the relevant paragraph numbers are shown.

10.2 Relationships with staff were regarded as being reasonable though there were some claims that many staff were not experienced enough to deal with issues raised by prisoners. In particular, we were told that there were problems regarding staff’s knowledge of life sentence management, the general view being that such prisoners needed more information and support than was currently provided through the LLO system.

10.3 The internal progression system came in for almost universal criticism with claims that there were insufficient differentials between the Halls to make it worth the effort of trying to get a move up the system. It was claimed also that because there was nothing much to gain, there was little to lose by being downgraded. Prisoners on protection felt that there were very few opportunities for them to move from Shotts to HMP Dungavel or to open conditions - paragraphs 3.9-14, 5.3 and 6.100.

10.4 Recreation facilities were described as being dull and unimaginative. The recreation rooms in the Halls said to be cold and austere and in many cases, the TV rooms in the sections did not have any seating which meant that prisoners had to take the chairs from their cells - paragraphs 3.2-4.

10.5 Drugs were said to be used by some prisoners because they were bored, particularly at weekends and it was suggested that televisions in cells would go a long way towards reducing the problem. It was claimed also that the introduction of MDT had led to an increase in the number of prisoners using opiates and there was criticism of the paucity of resources for detoxification. Concern was expressed about the effect of the introduction of the new drug detection equipment with claims that it could lead to innocent members of families testing positive as a result of unknown contact with illicit substances and then being banned from visiting the establishment - paragraphs 5.8-9, 5.11-25 and 6.83.

10.6 Visit facilities were described as being good. However, there were some complaints about prisoners not being allowed to play with their children in the play area for fears about drugs and about recently imposed restrictions on physical contact with visitors. It was suggested that prisoners serving long sentences should get more visits at the start of a sentence so that they could sort out their domestic affairs - paragraphs 6.83-91.

10.7 The enhanced wages party was thought to be a good idea - for those who were on it. Other prisoners felt that by comparison, the wages in the other parties were too low - paragraphs 6.41-42.

10.8 Food. Some prisoners felt that the choices and quality were good during the week, though less so at weekends. Other prisoners claimed that the portions were too small, that the quality did not match up to the description and that the meals were usually either cold or dried out - paragraphs 7.1-8.

10.9 Medical services. We were told that there was always a long wait to get access to any of the specialist services and prisoners resented the presence of a member of the Discipline staff in the treatment room when they were being seen by the MO - paragraphs 8.9 and 8.24-25.

10.10 Education staff were described as being helpful though resources were said to be inadequate. It was considered that more education was essential to help prisoners do better once they were released - paragraphs 6.52-56.

Comment

10.11 As noted at paragraph 9.28, we considered staff/prisoner relationships to be good but this report does recognise that improvements are needed in the management of life sentence prisoners. We also share prisoners’ concerns about the progression system and the recreation facilities though we acknowledge that there are plans to improve both aspects. There was no evidence to support the claims that the introduction of MDT had resulted in an increase in the number of prisoners using opiates and as the new drug detection equipment had not been brought into operation at the time of our inspection, we can offer no comment on its effectiveness. In our view, the visit arrangements at Shotts were among the best in the SPS and we considered that the involvement of families during the Induction phase should go a long way to helping prisoners sort out their domestic affairs. We shared the view expressed about the benefits of the enhanced wages party though we doubted whether Shotts was the ideal location for such a project. As regards food, we felt that what was on offer was good and that there was a wide variety of choice on offer. We were unable to make any assessment of the waiting times for access to specialist medical services but we did share prisoners’ concerns about the presence of a member of the Discipline staff during medical consultations and have suggested that some alternative arrangement should be found. Finally, as regards education, we were also impressed with the quality of the teaching but found no evidence to support the view that resources were inadequate and considered that the decision to move away from offering full-time studies had meant that the service was now being offered to more individuals.

Prisoners Complaints Procedure

10.12 The Management Support Manager was the establishment’s co-ordinator for the Complaints Procedure (CP) Scheme. Forms were held in the Halls, the Segregation Unit and the Health Centre. They were issued to prisoners on request and the progress of forms submitted by prisoners was tracked in these areas. We noted that the prescribed timescales were being met and that the system for confidential access to the Governor or Doctor was satisfactory. From a random sample of completed forms, we were satisfied that full written responses were being provided to prisoners at all stages of the process.

10.13 Meetings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) were held twice weekly. The Committee consisted of representatives from areas not involved in the complaints being heard and members were briefed on the process prior to the meetings.

10.14 There was a monthly audit of a random selection of forms to identify any weaknesses in the system. In recent times, those audits had highlighted some procedural issues that needed to be addressed and we were pleased to learn that appropriate action was being taken.