Report on HMP Shotts 21 August - 1 September 2017

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS) assesses the treatment and care of prisoners across the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) estate against a pre‑defined set of standards. These Standards are set out in the document ‘Standards for Inspecting and Monitoring Prisons in Scotland’, published March 2015 which can be found at https://www.prisonsinspectoratescotland.gov.uk/.

The Standards reflect the independence of the inspection of prisons in Scotland and are designed to provide information to prisoners, prison staff and the wider community on the main areas that are examined during the course of an inspection.

The Standards provide assurance to Ministers and the public that inspections are conducted in line with a framework that is consistent and that assessments are made against appropriate criteria.

While the basis for these Standards is rooted in International Human Rights treaties, conventions and in Prison Rules, they are the Standards of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS).

This report is set out to reflect the performance against these standards and has 10 main sections:

Standard 1 Lawful and transparent custody

Standard 2 Decency

Standard 3 Personal safety

Standard 4 Health and wellbeing

Standard 5 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority

Standard 6 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment

Standard 7 Purposeful activity

Standard 8 Transitions from custody to life in the community

Standard 9 Equality, dignity and respect

Standard 10 Organisational effectiveness

HMIPS assimilates information resulting in evidence based findings utilising a number of different techniques. These include:

obtaining information and documents from the (SPS) and the prison inspected;
shadowing and observing Prison Service and other specialist staff as they perform their duties within the prison;
interviewing prisoners and staff on a one‑to‑one basis;
conducting focus groups with prisoners and staff;
observing the range of services delivered within the prison at the point of delivery;
inspecting a wide range of facilities impacting on both prisoners and staff;
attending and observing relevant meetings impacting on both the management of the prison and the future of the prisoners such as Case Conferences; and
reviewing policies, procedures and performance reports produced both locally and by SPS headquarters specialists.

HMIPS is supported in our work by inspectors from Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), Education Scotland, Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Care Inspectorate.

The information gathered facilitates the compilation of a complete analysis of the prison against the standards used. This ensures that assessments are fair, balanced and accurate. In relation to each standard and quality indicator, Inspectors record their evaluation in two forms:

1. A colour coded assessment marker.

Rating		Definition
Good performance		Indicates good performance which may constitute good practice.
Satisfactory performance		Indicates overall satisfactory performance.
Generally acceptable performance		Indicates generally acceptable performance though some improvements are required.
Poor performance		Indicates poor performance and will be accompanied by a statement of what requires to be addressed.
Unacceptable performance		Indicates unacceptable performance that requires immediate attention.
Not applicable		Quality indicator is not applicable.

2. A written record of the evidence gathered is produced by the Inspector allocated each individual standard. This consists of a statement against each of the indicators contained within the standard inspected. It is important to recognise that although standards are assigned to Inspectors within the team all Inspectors have the opportunity to comment on findings at a deliberation session prior to final assessments being reached. This emphasises the fairness aspect of the process ensuring an unbiased decision is reached prior to completion of the final report.

Key Facts

Location

HM Shotts is situated in the countryside, south of the M8 motorway near the Lanarkshire village of Shotts.

Role

HMP Shotts is a maximum security prison for long term adult male prisoners. It provides 538 cells. It also houses a national facility within its boundaries, the National Integration Centre (NIC), which holds approximately 68 adult male prisoners who are in the initial stages of sentences of 8 years or over and prepares them for the eventual movement to mainstream establishments.

Population held at the time of inspection

At the time of the inspection there were a total of 531 long term prisoners. Please see Annex A for data supplied by HMP Shotts providing a breakdown by age, category and sentence length.

Accommodation

There are two main residential units; Lamont Hall and Allanton Hall. Both halls have the capacity to hold 269 prisoners. There is also a 14 cell Separation and Reintegration Unit (SRU).

All accommodation is designed for single occupancy and each cell has an integrated toilet and shower.

Date of last full inspection: 11‑19 March 2013

Date of last follow-up inspection: 29 September – 3 October 2014

Healthcare provider: NHS Lanarkshire

Learning provider: Fife College

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

Introduction

Although there has been a prison on the existing site since 1979, the current HMP Shotts has been built in the last seven years. This modern facility has been well designed, with suitable accommodation and facilities fit for its purpose. HMP Shotts occupies a unique position in Scotland as the only prison exclusively for long term prisoners. Of the 531 prisoners at the time of the inspection, 261 were serving life sentences (49%). A further 51 were serving a sentence of ten years or more (10%).

The last full inspection of HMP Shotts was conducted in 2013, with a follow-up inspection taking place in 2014. This inspection was carried out in August 2017. I am grateful to the guest inspectors from Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the Care Inspectorate, Education Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and other prisons in Scotland for their assistance with this inspection.

Inspection Findings

In relation to the ten Standards for Inspecting and Monitoring Prisons in Scotland used to inspect HMP Shotts, six were assessed as satisfactory and four as generally acceptable.

HMP Shotts was a calm and well-ordered prison; both prisoners and staff told inspectors that they felt safe in the prison. It was clear that there were respectful relationships between staff and prisoners, and prisoners felt they could raise matters of concern with their residential officers. The observation of appropriate professional boundaries was evident. The absence of a national anti-bullying strategy for the SPS continues to be a matter of concern, and a cause of inconsistent response to incidences of bullying in prisons in Scotland.

One growing concern, however, related to the reported increase in the use of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS). Prisoners and staff informed us that they were anxious about the unpredictable behaviour which the use of NPS led to, heightening concerns about personal safety and well-being. It should be noted that this is not an emerging issue solely within HMP Shotts; it is one that is becoming more evident in a number of Scottish prisons.

HMP Shotts included the NIC, a national facility, designed to assist long term prisoners at the beginning of their sentence to adjust to their sentence in a supportive environment. We saw clear evidence of constructive relationships between staff and prisoners, resulting in suitably designed activities for each prisoner. It was encouraging to see the operation of a Personal Officer scheme at its best. Similarly, the staff who worked in the SRU demonstrated a high level of commitment and skill in working with the often troubled and sometimes challenging prisoners there. Good team working was evident, with investment in relationships producing positive results.

In general there were also good working relationships between healthcare staff and operational prison staff. Health improvement services were excellent, with a clear commitment to providing education and support to improve the health of the prison population. Health Centre staff were well supported by the wider services provided by NHS Lanarkshire. Access to mental health and addictions services were good, as were dental, Blood Borne Viruses (BBV) and stop smoking services. The absence of regular GP cover diminished the provision of healthcare, and there was a need for more accurate documentation of risk assessments.

As has been found in other prisons, the process for assessing whether a prisoner is fit to attend work is not straightforward. Healthcare staff question to what extent this needs to be a task for them and whether this is the best use of their skills and experience. Greater clarity on a national position would be helpful.

Alzheimer Scotland had been working with staff in HMP Shotts to develop a “dementia friendly” prison, in order to provide welcome support for the growing number of older prisoners. The services provided by the Chaplaincy Team were particularly appreciated by the prison population.

Shortly before this inspection, the contract for the provision of learning and education within the prison had changed from New College Lanarkshire to Fife College. In the lead-up to this contract transfer, staff concerns and uncertainties about their employment terms had impacted significantly on the staffing complement and resources for the delivery of classes. In the light of this transfer, HMIPS and Education Scotland will return to HMP Shotts in 2018 to assess its impact. Prisoners in the Learning Centre continued to produce the STIR magazine, a high quality publication featuring the work of prisoners from across Scotland. HMP Shotts had submitted a significant number of entries for the annual Koestler Awards.

Family visits were encouraged for prisoners, but the lack of a dedicated Family Contact Officer (FCO) role meant that this valued support for families was not regularly or reliably provided. There were plans in place to develop a Visitor Centre to further support the families of prisoners when they visit HMP Shotts.

The prison had a well-established and efficiently administered Integrated Case Management (ICM) process in place. The ICM meetings were well attended by prison-based and community agencies. A backlog for programmes to address offending behaviour and a waiting list for prisoners to progress to the National Top End (NTE) meant that prisoners were delayed in progressing through their sentence. This is a problem that is not exclusive to HMP Shotts. Long-term prisoners who do not progress to the NTE or to open conditions were released back into the community at the end of their sentence directly from HMP Shotts. It was noticeable that there was little in place by way of support for prisoners in preparation for their release or by way of throughcare support after they had been liberated. Given that these prisoners had served sentences of many years, the need for post-release support was particularly marked.

Next Steps

This report identifies a number of areas of good performance which are worthy of sharing, and which I hope will be taken up by other prisons in Scotland. It also highlights where improvements can be made. I look forward to seeing these improvements introduced through the prison’s future plans.

In relation to the provision of learning opportunities in HMP Shotts, we will revisit the prison with colleagues from Education Scotland in 2018, to assess the impact of the change in education contract provider.

HMIPS will continue to monitor the progress in HMP Shotts, through regular monitoring visits by Independent Prison Monitors (IPMs).

David Strang
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

December 2017

Summary of Inspection Findings

Standard 1 Lawful and transparent custody
Satisfactory performance
Standard 2 Decency
Satisfactory performance
Standard 3 Personal safety
Satisfactory performance
Standard 4 Health and wellbeing
Generally acceptable performance
Standard 5 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority
Satisfactory performance
Standard 6 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment
Satisfactory performance
Standard 7 Purposeful activity
Generally acceptable performance
Standard 8 Transitions from custody to life in the community
Generally acceptable performance
Standard 9 Equality, dignity and respect
Generally acceptable performance
Standard 10 Organisational effectiveness
Satisfactory performance

Good Performance

There were 11 good performance Quality Indicators: 1.6, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.14, 5.11, 5.17, 5.18, 7.8, 7.10, and 7.25.

Standards, Commentary and Quality Indicators

Standard 1 - Lawful and transparent use of custody

The prison complies with administrative and procedural requirements of the law and takes appropriate action in response to the findings and recommendations of official bodies that exercise supervisory jurisdiction over it.

Commentary

The prison ensures that all prisoners are lawfully detained. Each prisoner’s time in custody is accurately calculated; they are properly classified, allocated and accommodated appropriately. The prison co‑operates fully with agencies which have powers to investigate matters in prison.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts does not receive prisoners directly from court; therefore the opportunities to observe the admissions process were much reduced. However, the small number of admissions that took place during the period of the inspection were undertaken with a great deal of humanity and care, and met the required standard. Prisoners arriving in HMP Shotts had undergone at least one previous admission process, whilst in another establishment, where warrant verification and prisoner identification would have been checked. Should an individual attend court, whilst in HMP Shotts, and receive a further sentence or have their current sentences altered, there was a robust process for informing the prisoner of any changes to their release dates. The processes for providing the Governor with assurance that statutory duties, such as Health and Safety and Fire Legislation were being adhered to were extensive and appeared to work well.

Quality Indicators

1.1 Statutory procedures for identification and registration of prisoners are fully complied with.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Reception staff took considerable care prior to accepting an individual from the escort contractor. They ensured that the person before them was indeed the individual they were expecting, and that there was a valid warrant for their retention in custody. Once each stage of the process of receiving the person into custody was completed, they updated their records and where appropriate the SPS electronic prisoner records system (PR2). The Reception staff undertook their duties with care and compassion, and managed the process at a speed that met the needs of the individual prisoner.

1.2 All prisoners are classified and this is recorded on the prisoner’s electronic record.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts does not receive prisoners straight from court. Instead they arrive from another establishment, which puts HMP Shotts in the fortunate position of knowing who is arriving well in advance of their arrival. This allows staff to undertake work prior to their arrival to ensure they are allocated to an appropriate area of the establishment. Indeed, on occasions, an individual’s arrival may be delayed or cancelled if an appropriate location cannot be identified. The details contained within PR2 were checked for accuracy and where appropriate updated or altered as required.

1.3 All prisoners are allocated to a prison or to a location within a prison dependent on their classification, gender, vulnerability, security risk or personal medical condition.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As detailed in quality indicator (QI) 1.2, HMP Shotts know who is arriving in advance. They analyse the information contained within PR2 to ensure that individuals are allocated to the most appropriate location possible on arrival. It was evident that Reception staff did not act purely on the information provided, but ensured they checked their facts and understanding with prisoners on arrival. Should new information come to light during the initial interview, a different location would be identified, if required.

1.4 A cell sharing risk assessment is carried out prior to a prisoner’s allocation to cellular accommodation.

Rating: Not applicable

HMP Shotts is unique within the Scottish prison estate in that it only has single occupancy cells.

1.5 Release and conditional release eligibility dates are calculated correctly and communicated to the prisoner without delay.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts does not receive prisoners straight from court; therefore they do not provide those arriving with release dates. Instead they rely on this having been provided by the sending establishment. Should the prisoner seek clarification, the staff would refer to the information contained within PR2. Should a prisoner attend court whilst in HMP Shotts and receive additional sentences, they receive a letter detailing how that new sentence affects their release dates.

1.6 The statutory duties and powers granted to the governor or director are performed as required by law.

Rating: Good performance

A range of structures and processes were in place to ensure that aspects such as Health and Safety, Fire Regulations and Food Hygiene Regulations were appropriately monitored and overseen. In addition, the establishment had a comprehensive approach to governance and are subjected to a number of internal audits throughout the year. It was evident from the information provided, that the Governor and her senior management team dedicated a significant amount of their management focus to ensuring that HMP Shotts was a safe place to work and live.

1.7 Appropriate action has been taken in response to findings or recommendations of monitoring, inspectorial, audit or judicial authorities that have reported on the performance of the prison since the last full inspection.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Business Improvement Manager (BIM) was responsible for overseeing and reporting on actions taken to address areas for improvement identified via audit and governance processes. The BIM operated a number of tracking and reporting processes to ensure that all appropriate staff and managers were aware of progress made and outstanding actions. There was clear evidence that actions were taken when required, and there was a proactive approach to improving key business processes.

Standard 2 - Decency

The prison supplies the basic requirements of decent life to the prisoners.

Commentary

The prison provides to all prisoners the basic physical requirements for a decent life. All buildings, rooms, outdoor spaces and activity areas are of adequate size, well maintained, appropriately furnished, clean and hygienic. Each prisoner has a bed, bedding and suitable clothing, has good access to toilets and washing facilities, is provided with necessary toiletries and cleaning materials, and is properly fed. These needs are met in ways that promote each prisoner’s sense of personal and cultural identity and self‑respect.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts is a modern prison which is fit for purpose. The buildings were clean and tidy with suitable processes and procedures in place for both on‑going maintenance and cleaning. However, at one end of the main corridor bird droppings were evident throughout the period of inspection. Whilst management had taken steps to minimise access for the birds, they should ensure that the corridor is kept clean. Each cell had a toilet, shower and wash hand basin, with baths available for use on all landings. Cleaning materials were readily available along with a suitable range of toiletries.

The bedding was suitable and laundered regularly. However, in accordance with HMIPS reports published about other establishments, the quality of mattresses and pillows should be reviewed as they were very thin and required replacement. Prison issued clothing was fit‑for‑purpose and serviceable.

A variety of diets for medical, cultural and religious reasons were catered for. The kitchen provided a good standard of well-presented food, served at the appropriate temperature, and included their own baked bread which also provided good training opportunities for prisoners.

Quality Indicators

2.1 The prison buildings, accommodation and facilities are fit‑for‑purpose and maintained to an appropriate standard.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The rebuilt HMP Shotts became fully operational in November 2012. Therefore the buildings, accommodation and facilities were of a modern design and fit for purpose. At the time of the inspection, prisoners were in the process of repainting the walls in Allanton Level 3. The Prison Estates Team undertook a programme of planned maintenance.

2.2 Good levels of cleanliness and hygiene are observed throughout the prison ensuring procedures for the prevention and control of infection are followed.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Passmen and work parties did a good job of maintaining a clean environment. However, whilst the majority of pantries were found to be either clean or very clean, a small number were less so with food waste not cleaned away. This was in particular in Lamont Level 1 and Level 3 North. The central corridor was also an issue with swifts nesting close to the SRU entrance, with droppings observed throughout the period of inspection. Whilst management had taken steps to minimise access for these birds, they should ensure that the corridor is kept clean.

2.3 Cleaning materials are available to all prisoners to allow them to maintain their personal living area to a clean and hygienic standard.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners could readily access cleaning materials, with communal mops being washed weekly in the Laundry.

2.4 All prisoners have a bed which is fit‑for‑purpose and in good condition.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Standard issue beds were in use and were fit for purpose. We came across a taller prisoner who had had a longer bed made for him in the Workshop. This constituted an area of good practice; however it appeared to be a one‑off. In accordance with HMIPS reports published about other establishments which are faced with the same issue, the quality of mattresses and pillows should be reviewed as they were very thin and required replacement. We found ad hoc arrangements in place, such as one prisoner with a bad back being issued with two mattresses; however this does not address the wider problem.

2.5 All prisoners are given sufficient bedding or are allowed to supply their own. Bedding is in good condition, clean and can be laundered regularly.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prison bedding was suitable and clean. Prisoners could supply their own bedding, with high numbers choosing to do so, which could be laundered regularly.

2.6 A range of toiletries and personal hygiene materials are available to all prisoners to allow them to maintain their sense of personal identity and self‑respect.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The establishment provided a suitable range of toiletries within the halls, and branded items were available to purchase from the prison canteen by those who wished to, and had the funds.

2.7 All prisoners have access to washing and toileting facilities that is either freely available to them or readily available on request.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

At HMP Shotts each cells had its own shower, toilet and wash hand basin, with baths available in all landings.

2.8 All prisoners have supplied to them or are able to obtain for themselves a range of clothing suitable for the activities they undertake. The clothes available to them are in good condition, fit‑for‑purpose and allow them to maintain a sense of personal identity and self‑respect. Clothing can be regularly laundered.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoner clothing was found to be in good condition, with a suitable range available. Clothing could be laundered up to three times per week. There were stocks of new clothes available in the establishment to replace items no longer fit for use.

2.9 The meals served to prisoners are nutritionally sufficient, well‑balanced, varied, served at the appropriate temperature and well presented.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The standard SPS winter menu choices were on offer on a three week menu cycle. Food was observed to be well‑presented and of a good standard. Food focus groups were held quarterly and their recommendations were considered by the Catering Team. Any agreed alterations were communicated to the wider population via notice boards and focus group members. Bread was mainly baked on site, which not only provided a range of fresh bread products daily but offered employment opportunities for prisoners. Pantry passmen took daily temperature checks of the hot food, which were appropriately recorded, and the temperature probes were also checked periodically. This approach was an area of good practice. Care was taken to avoid the steaming of food in the trolleys, in particular on nights when the trolleys were taken directly to the halls for serving. HMP Shotts gained the NHS Healthy Living Award for the period 9/8/17 to 8/8/19. It was encouraging to note that Athena training (a computer based system that analyses the nutritional information of meals), was being delivered to managers later this year.

2.10 The meals served to each prisoner conform to their dietary needs, cultural or religious norms.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A range of meals were provided for at the time of inspection and included Halal, Kosher and a number of diets for medical reasons, the latter being discussed and agreed with the Health Centre staff. Various religious festivals were also catered for with special meals provided for example at Christmas and Eid.

Standard 3 - Personal safety

The prison takes all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of all prisoners.

Commentary

All appropriate steps are taken to minimise the levels of harm to which prisoners are exposed. Appropriate steps are taken to protect prisoners from harm from others or themselves. Where violence or accidents do occur, the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and appropriate management action taken.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

It was evident that the management and staff in HMP Shotts had devoted a significant amount of time and effort to achieving a safe, ordered and calm environment within the establishment. Staff and prisoners’ comments confirmed this.

However staff and prisoners reported one potentially significant emerging issue. The recent arrival of NPS had the potential to undermine all the positive and effective work undertaken in recent years to establish a calm and safe environment within HMP Shotts. The management within HMP Shotts were aware of the recent increase in the number or prisoners who required to be cared for under the auspices of arrangements for those suspected to be under the influence of NPS, and were concerned about its potential impact. It is not clear if SPS, at a corporate level, have a plan in place to measure, mitigate and evaluate the potential impact of NPS on prison order and stability. HMIPS is aware of the impact that these substances have had within the prison system in England. It encourages the SPS Board to ensure that sufficient analysis and resources are dedicated to this issue, to ensure that the potential risks are as well understood as possible, and that appropriate mitigation and management processes are in place.

It was encouraging to note that opportunities were taken through the mandatory drug testing and orderly room processes, to gain an insight into what may be behind some of these non-compliances. The rationale being that if an understanding can be gained then solutions may become more obvious. This was particularly evident in the orderly room, where a ‘one‑to‑one’ opportunity was utilised not only to dispense punishment, but to seek to support the individual should they wish that support. HMP Shotts management team should be commended for adopting this approach.

Quality Indicators

3.1 All reasonable steps are taken to minimise situations that are known to increase the risk of aggressive or violent behaviour. Where such situations are unavoidable, appropriate levels of supervision are maintained.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The managers and staff in HMP Shotts deployed a range of processes to ensure, where possible, that a safe environment was maintained. The success of this approach was confirmed during focus groups held with prisoners. When they were asked if they felt safe in HMP Shotts, the resounding response was yes. It was also evident during discussions with prisoners and staff, that whilst they both were strongly of the opinion that HMP Shotts was a safe place to live and work, there was a growing concern about the impact that NPS was having. Both staff and prisoners commented on the unpredictability of individuals under the influence of NPS, and how that affected the atmosphere in the halls and made them feel less safe and more anxious.

3.2 The requirements of Health and Safety legislation are observed throughout the prison.

Rating: Good performance

HMP Shotts had a very highly developed IT‑based system for monitoring Health and Safety requirements and compliance. In addition to the IT‑based system there was an established process of regular review of risk assessments, safe systems of work and potentially dangerous substances. All managers spoken with could articulate their roles, and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to Health and Safety.

It was clear that the Governor and Deputy Governor took the lead in promoting a positive engagement, across the establishment, in relation to Health and Safety and Fire safety.

3.3 All activities take place according to safe systems based on realistic risk assessments.

Rating: Good performance

A wide‑ranging set of safe systems of work were evident and appeared to be comprehensive. They covered activities undertaken by staff, working environments for staff and prisoners, and the management and handling of potentially dangerous or toxic substances. Spots checks confirmed that the tasks checked were being undertaken in line with the declared safe systems, and staff and prisoners were aware of the correct procedures and why they needed to be followed. All prisoners operating equipment were trained in its use and application, and comprehensive records of training and assessed competence were maintained. This is practice worthy of sharing.

3.4 The behaviour of staff contributes to the lowering of the risks of aggression and violence.

Rating: Good performance

It was clear that staff prisoner relationships were pivotal in maintaining the calm and ordered atmosphere that was evident during the inspection. With very few exceptions, prisoners informed inspectors that they had a good relationship with staff. This positive relationship and interaction was most notable within the NIC. This was, at least in part, because the hall staff group spent time with the prisoners during a range of activities not normally delivered by staff in other residential areas.

The staff in the SRU operated in a manner where, in the main, they provided a controlled and ordered area through positive interactions with the individuals within their care. Where other means of control had to be deployed, the staff to their credit endeavoured to establish a normalised environment and engagement as soon as practicable.

Where force had to be used, there were clear records maintained and audited to ensure that management were aware of the reasons behind such actions, and that they were proportionate to the presenting threat.

3.5 Care is taken during the period immediately following the admission of a prisoner to ensure their safety.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The admission process was undertaken with care, compassion and humanity. The Reception staff took great care to ensure that new arrivals were provided with the information they needed. The interactions observed were of a very high standard and the attention to detail was impressive. Staff within the residential areas were aware in advance of new arrivals, and worked with them to integrate them as smoothly as possible. The situations where individuals arrive after the canteen has been delivered should be reviewed, to ensure new arrivals have access to canteen facilities as soon as possible.

3.6 The prison implements thorough and compassionate practices to identify and care for those at risk of suicide or self‑harm.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The ‘Talk to Me’ Strategy was well‑embedded within HMP Shotts, with over 97% of staff having completed the appropriate training. All interactions witnessed were handled with care, compassion and good involvement of the prisoner, thus ensuring it was an inclusive process. For circumstances of self‑harm there was a well‑established multi‑disciplinary approach. It was encouraging to note that there was a clear separation in the management of those deemed at risk of self‑harm, and those assessed as having suicidal thoughts.

It was of slight concern that some cases referred to the Multi-disciplinary Mental Health Team (MDMHT) meeting were not heard if key members of NHS staff were not in attendance. Management should ensure that cases are heard the first time they are tabled and not unnecessarily delayed or postponed.

3.7 The prison takes particular care of prisoners whose appearance, behaviour, background or circumstances leave them at heightened risk of harm or abuse from others.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Whilst it was evident that staff did what they could to make prisoners feel included, the lack of, in particular, induction material in a range of different languages, made it difficult for prisoners who do not have English as their first language to readily or fully integrate themselves into the prison regime.

The Reception utilised a number of approaches, such as a flags of the world poster to allow someone to identify their origins. They also utilised interpretation services. However, once an individual moved to a residential area staff were less clear about when and where it was appropriate to utilise translation services. This situation could lead to individuals becoming increasingly isolated and lonely. Management should provide clear guidelines on the circumstances in which they should utilise telephone translation services within residential areas. Whilst the desire of staff to meet the needs of those prisoners who may become isolated or subject to abuse was evident, their efforts were not fully supported by the facilities available to them.

3.8 The allocation, management and supervision of prisoners known to present a risk takes into account the nature of the risk they present.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison utilised a tactical tasking and co‑ordination approach to dynamically assess and evaluate developing or emerging risks. Once a potential risk had been identified, specific plans or tactics were communicated to those staff involved in the management and supervision of the activities. HMP Shotts worked closely with other establishments. Where necessary or appropriate, an individual may be transferred to another location locally. Should the presenting risk factors be significant, they may be transferred to another establishment.

One of the particular challenges of the reported recent influx of NPS into the establishment meant that known behaviours and attitudes may no longer be a viable tool in assessing the potential risk posed, due to the unpredictability of how NPS will affect an individual. This situation posed significant challenges to staff and management as well as creating some anxiety within the wider prison population and staff group.

3.9 Where bullying or harassment of prisoners is suspected or known to have taken place, steps are taken to isolate those responsible from their current or potential victims and to work with them to modify their behaviour.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The lack of an SPS‑wide policy with regard to bullying and intimidation continues to be a concern. Whilst HMIPS were informed that a new policy would to be launched in the coming months we were not provided with any specific details.

HMP Shotts had a very detailed local policy; however management and staff stated that it was not used. This was primarily due to concerns that it was open to challenge, and had not gone through the usual checking process to establish that it met the legislative requirements.

3.10 Those who have been the victims of bullying or harassment are offered support and assistance.

Rating: Poor performance

The local policy referred to under QI 3.9 appeared ineffective. It was not used by any staff members as they had no confidence that their decision would be upheld if legally challenged. Whilst the Inspectors concluded that staff motives were to deal appropriately with situations of bullying, the lack of a consistent approach across the establishment or between staff was a significant concern. The lack of a national policy meant that there was no single or consistent approach across the establishment or indeed across the SPS estate. This shortcoming is not one that the establishment itself can resolve. A new national policy is very much needed. SPS management must ensure that a new national anti‑bullying and intimidation policy is published at the earliest possible opportunity.

3.11 Allegations or incidents of mistreatment, intimidation, hate, bullying, harassment or violence are investigated by a person of sufficient independence and lead to appropriate management action.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Whilst the lack of an anti‑bullying and intimidation policy is a concern, it was evident that the establishment did not tolerate unacceptable behaviour from prisoners or staff. Where a concern was brought to the attention of management, via a prisoner speaking to staff or completing a complaint form, an investigation would be undertaken. However, in the main, any investigation would be undertaken locally which may not satisfy the ‘sufficient independence’ test.

3.12 Systems are in place throughout the prison to ensure that a proportionate and rapid response can be made to any emergency threat to safety or life that might occur.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The establishment had an extensive range of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and contingency plans. Additionally they had a system in place to review these at regular intervals or when something material had changed. The alarm response protocol was widely understood, and the staff who responded were fully aware of their role and responsibility. With regard to a situation where a prisoner was found to be unresponsive the Code Red/Code Blue protocols were firmly embedded, and all staff knew their role should such a situation develop.

3.13 There are emergency means of communication and alarms throughout the prison; they are tested regularly and are working satisfactorily.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Staff in HMP Shotts had access to a personal alarm and a radio. The personal alarm, when activated, provided all staff with the location of the alarm, and those identified as first responders would make their way to the location to provide assistance. The radios and alarms were regularly tested and any faults were reported and acted upon timeously.

3.14 There is an appropriate set of plans for managing emergencies and unpredictable events and staff are adequately trained and exercised in the roles they adopt in implementing the plans.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As mentioned in QI 3.12, HMP Shotts had an extensive range of SOPs and contingency plans. Whilst not checked in their entirety, these appeared to be comprehensive and detailed. Additionally the staff responsible for implementing them were familiar with them and their role.

Standard 4 - Health and wellbeing

The prison takes all reasonable steps to ensure the health and wellbeing of all prisoners.

Commentary

All prisoners receive care and treatment which takes account of all relevant NHS standards, guidelines and evidence‑based treatments. Healthcare professionals play an effective role in preventing harm associated with prison life and in promoting the health and wellbeing of all prisoners.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Generally acceptable performance

Throughout the inspection HMIPS found the Healthcare Team to be a well-motivated and caring workforce. They operated as a cohesive team, and staff told us that they felt supported by healthcare managers and wider NHS Lanarkshire to undertake their role.

Access to clinical services was good. Waiting times were equivalent to those in the community, and some services surpassed community waiting times, such as access to mental health services.

HMP Shotts is the first dementia friendly prison in Scotland and in partnership with Alzheimer Scotland the prison is raising awareness of dementia with prisoners, their families and the prison workforce. This was practice worthy of sharing.

There were difficulties securing permanent GP cover which meant Locums provided five morning sessions per week. This arrangement meant no GP clinics were held in the prison from 13:30 Monday to Friday or during weekends. Healthcare staff could access a GP via the Out of Hours service after 18:00 and at the weekends. The situation regarding GP provision should be reviewed by NHS management.

There had been an increase in the incidence of prisoners being under the influence of psychoactive substances, which had placed an additional strain on all prison staff. SPS in conjunction with healthcare staff had issued a psychoactive substance advice leaflets to all prisoners, as well as advice on harm reduction measures. CREW, a third sector organisation, had also visited the prison to deliver NPS information sessions to staff and prisoners. This was good practice.

As all Scottish prisons move to a smoke free environment, we were encouraged to see that all new prisoners who smoked were offered a one to one session with the stop smoking service. This was practice worthy of sharing.

The registered general nurses were increasingly required to manage a range of emergency and non-emergency care, which required additional clinical assessment and decision making skills. A process for developing and assessing competence in these areas was not in place. NHS management must rectify this situation as a matter of some urgency.

Although there was good access time to the Mental Health Team for assessments and the Mental Health Nurses demonstrated significant clinical knowledge, there were weaknesses in the way the team documented patients’ assessments.

Quality Indicators

4.1 There is an appropriate level of healthcare staffing in a range of specialisms relevant to the healthcare needs of the prisoner population.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prisoners had access to a range of specialist services including: psychiatry; dental; podiatry; out of hours services; blood borne virus and optical services.

During the inspection there were the following vacancies; two Primary Care Team posts, an Addiction Case Worker and the Service Manager’s post. All of which were in the process of recruitment. In the interim the prison was utilising NHS Lanarkshire’s bank staff to cover vacancies, and one of the clinical managers was acting up as the Service Manager.

The Primary Care Nursing Team provided seven day cover and Mental Health Nurses worked Monday to Friday. NHS Lanarkshire had recently appointed a Clinical Psychologist for two days a week, and their initial role was to develop the clinical psychology service within the prison. The Psychiatrist attended the prison one day a week and was supported by a Specialist Registrar and a trainee doctor.

There were difficulties securing permanent GP cover resulting in Locums providing five morning sessions per week. This arrangement meant there were no GP clinics in the prison from Monday to Friday between the hours of 13:30 – 18:00. Healthcare staff could access a GP for advice by telephone through the Out of Hours service after 18:00 and at weekends. This had resulted in a two week wait for a routine GP appointment. The situation with regard to GP provision must be addressed. Discussions were taking place to enable salaried GPs from NHS Lanarkshire’s community prescribing GPs service, to provide cover for HMP Shotts on a permanent basis.

GP out of hours cover was provided by NHS Lanarkshire Out of Hours Service. A Pharmacy Technician was employed five days a week.

4.2 Prisoners have direct confidential access to a healthcare professional.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were clear processes in place to collect, allocate and record self-referrals. Referral forms had pictures of specific services on them for ease of use, which enabled prisoners to easily identify the service they required. The self-referral forms also had a box prisoners could tick if they required condoms.

During their initial interview with healthcare staff, prisoners were given an information wallet containing details of health improvement and health screening services, as well as information on how to access healthcare services. Healthcare staff also contributed to the prisoner induction process.

4.3 Appropriate confidentiality of healthcare consultations and records is maintained in the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Confidentiality was maintained during all clinics and consultations observed during the inspection. The prisoner's electronic health record (Vision) was updated at the time of each consultation. Confidentiality was maintained with regards to the retention of patients’ health records. Appointment slips and results information from healthcare staff were given to patients in a sealed envelope marked as confidential.

We did witness Prison Officers shouting down the halls to notify patients of appointments with the Healthcare Team, which could potentially breach confidentiality of the patient.

4.4 Healthcare provided in the prison meets accepted professional standards.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

There were clear systems in place for checking Nursing and Midwifery Council registrations, and supporting revalidation for nursing staff. Nursing staff told us that they felt supported with revalidation.

All staff had up‑to‑date knowledge and skills framework plans and scheduled review dates, and were up‑to‑date with mandatory training. HMIPS observed and were satisfied that the administration and recording of controlled drugs were in line with both the Nursing and Midwifery Council guidelines, and NHS Lanarkshire’s policy for the administration of controlled drugs.

The Healthcare Team were required to give out large volumes of in-possession medications to all halls on a Friday afternoon. Inspectors were told that the process took considerable staff resource and time to manage, and given the volume of medications being given out, there was a risk of errors being made. Healthcare managers advised us that they had asked SPS if they could stagger dispensing across several days between halls, and that SPS managers had rejected this due to the impact it would have on the regime. This was a concern.

The Mental Health Nursing Team and Addiction Team had access to monthly clinical supervision facilitated by NHS Lanarkshire’s Nurse Consultant. This is practice worthy of sharing. Formal line management supervision arrangements were in place but a lack of appropriate meeting space within the Health Centre meant it was challenging to provide. There had been a proposal to modify the layout of the non-clinical rooms but this had been rejected by SPS due to costs. SPS and NHS management need to review this situation to ensure that the space provided is fit for purpose.

Inspectors found weaknesses with the arrangements to provide supervision to registered general nurses. In addition, Registered General Nurses were increasingly expected to manage a range of emergency and non-emergency care which required additional clinical assessment and decision-making skills. A process for developing and assessing competence in these areas was not in place. NHS Lanarkshire were aware of these weaknesses, and advised that a training and skills needs analysis was planned to ensure clinical care was being provided in line with other services within NHS Lanarkshire.

4.5 Where the healthcare professional identifies a need, prisoners are able to access specialist healthcare services either inside the prison or in the community.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Healthcare Team submitted waiting list information for all clinics and specialist services as part of their self-assessment. Waiting times were acceptable and met NHS Lanarkshire’s target for access to clinical services, with some services surpassing community waiting times.

Dental and optical services were provided for prisoners by community based providers, and were accessed through appointments arranged by health staff. There was a two week waiting list to see the Dentist for a routine appointment, and the Dental Team offered six-monthly routine check-up appointments.

At the point of admission, if a prisoner had on-going investigations or treatment in secondary services they would be supported to ensure this continued.

An electronic referrals system was not supported; therefore referrals for NHS services out with the prison were arranged via paper referrals. This could potentially lead to delays in referrals being received and/or referrals going missing.

Patients had good access to the Mental Health Team for assessment and support, and on average patients received a mental health assessment within 48 hours. Patients could be referred to the Psychiatrist and Clinical Psychologist. New prisoners with a severe and enduring mental health condition were given an appointment to see the Psychiatrist. Where admission to a Psychiatric Unit was indicated, arrangements were made to transfer prisoners. This could be to a low secure environment (intensive psychiatric care unit), medium or high secure environment, determined by the level of illness and offence.

The Mental Health and Addiction Team took a collaborative approach to the management of patients identified as having addictions as well as mental health issues. Patients were identified on arrival to HMP Shotts, and discussed at the mental health weekly referral meeting. Should the clinical presentation of a prisoner indicate a need for more immediate treatment or review, there was a process to seek advice from the Consultant Psychiatrist.

4.6 Prisoners identified as having been victims of physical, mental or sexual abuse are supported and offered appropriate treatment. The relevant agencies are notified.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners who suffered injury within the prison were seen immediately by the Healthcare Team. If the injury was serious they would attend the local accident and emergency department.

Prisoners could self-refer to Open Secret which offered supportive listening. It did not offer evidence based treatments for complex trauma. Prisoners could make a confidential referral to the Mental Health Team, and clinical psychology was available for prisoners who had experienced complex trauma.

Patients who were suffering from low mood, mild to moderate depression and/or anxiety could also be referred to Living Life Counsellors – a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy telephone service. Inspectors were told that the uptake of this service was poor, as prisoners wrongly perceived that SPS staff would be listening into personal telephone calls with the counsellors.

4.7 Care is taken during the period immediately following the admission of a prisoner to ensure their health and wellbeing.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

All prisoners transferred to HMP Shotts were screened on admission by a Registered Nurse, and where possible, a Mental Health Nurse. Present and past medical health would be discussed, hepatitis and sexually transmitted infection status checked, mental health and suicide risk assessed, prescriptions confirmed and weight, blood pressure and pulse checked. They were also offered support with the management of nicotine addiction. Information was recorded on the patient’s Vision record.

Should either the Nurse or patient have concerns in relation to the patient’s health, they would be seen by a GP at the next clinic or referred to a relevant clinic.

All prisoners were issued with an information wallet, explaining all healthcare services offered at HMP Shotts as well as an HIV information leaflet. This was good practice.

The room in Reception to see new prisoners was not fit for purpose as it did not have a hand washing sink, and there was no privacy screen on the door. This was a concern.

As discussed at QI 4.1, there was no GP on site from 13:30 Monday to Friday or at weekends. As the majority of new prisoners arrived in the afternoon, any issues relating to their medication or healthcare could result in delays in patients receiving their medications if the Healthcare Team had not been given prior notice. This was a concern.

4.8 Care plans are implemented for prisoners whose physical or psychological health or capacity leaves them at risk of harm from others.

Rating: Poor performance

Although access time to the Mental Health Team for assessments was good, and the Mental Health Nurses demonstrated significant clinical knowledge, there were weaknesses in the way the team documented patients’ assessments. The Mental Health Nurses used a standardised “Mental Health Presentation checklist”. This form was used for reference purposes only and was not scanned onto Vision or kept in the patient's clinical record. This was an area for improvement.

There were no clinical risk assessment and formulation tools in place. We were also concerned that the assessment document was largely medical, and did not take into account the wider social determinants of a prisoner’s health. Care plans were found to be prescriptive and not risk informed or outcome focused. There was no evidence of patients being involved in the development of their care plan. NHS Lanarkshire was aware of this, and arrangements were in place to review and align the documentation with NHS Lanarkshire Mental Health Teams, and develop SMART outcome focused care plans. This was an area for improvement.

When a prisoner was considered at risk of self-harm the plan of care was jointly agreed though the ‘Talk to Me’ Strategy.

Care plans for patients with physical health issues were also found to be prescriptive and not outcome focused. NHS Lanarkshire was aware of this and was reviewing all clinical documentation to ensure they were in line with other services across the Board. Cells were available for prisoners with physical and mental disabilities, and the prison had dementia friendly prison cells. The bathrooms within these cells had colour contrast to aid those prisoners with a cognitive impairment. This was practice worthy of sharing.

SPS has a responsibility to provide social care support for prisoners. Inspectors were informed that accessing and monitoring personal care support within the prison had proved challenging, and due to a difficulty in securing an external social care provider the NHS Lanarkshire Bank Nursing Service currently provided social care.

The prison had access to a community based Occupational Therapist. This was good practice.

NHS Lanarkshire will be asked to complete an action plan in response to concerns raised under this QI.

4.9 Healthcare staff offer a range of clinics relevant to the prisoner population. Where the healthcare professional identifies a need, prisoners are able to access specialist healthcare services either inside the prison or in the community.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

A Nurse led clinic, a treatment room clinic and a Keep Well clinic were available for those patients over 40 years of age.

A training and skills needs analysis was planned to determine the feasibility of implementing a long term conditions clinics. Currently patients with long term conditions such as asthma, diabetes, COPD or coronary heart disease were seen at the GP clinic.

The Consultant Psychiatrist held a clinic once a week, supported by mental health staff and a Specialist Registrar.

All prisoners held in SRU were reviewed by Mental Health Nurses on a weekly basis.

The Addiction Team ran a Harm Reduction for Release clinic, and was alerted to all prisoners due to be liberated at least a month in advance. All prisoners due for release were offered harm reduction support regardless of whether they had a known drug history. This is good practice.

4.10 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to Transmissible diseases.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

A weekly Blood Borne Virus (BBV) Service was run by a specialist BBV Community Nurse. The service was comprehensive and patients could progress from initial blood testing to treatment in a few months.

All prisoners transferred were offered a Hepatitis B vaccination and an opt-out service for Dry Spot Testing. This was good practice.

Blood spill kits were available in the Health Centre. Within the prison setting the services of the SPS cleaners were utilised for the cleaning of bodily fluids.

Healthcare staff advised HMIPS that if a prisoner displayed enteric symptoms, bed down (isolation) was given for 48 hours. Although SPS cleaning staff were aware of infection control measures, they stated that they were not told why prisoners were given a bed down in order to maintain confidentiality. After speaking with the SPS cleaning staff it became clear that they did not follow precautionary measures, or provide a deep clean to relevant cells. Furthermore, SPS cleaning staff were of the understanding that it was the responsibility of each prisoner to clean their cell using multipurpose detergent. The prison should ensure that all SPS staff understand the purpose of bed down (isolation).

4.11 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to the maintenance of hygiene and infection control standards.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The general Health Centre environment was fit for practice from an infection prevention and control perspective. We witnessed good hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment. Latex free gloves and aprons were available in the Health Centre, along with hand washing sinks and appropriate domestic and clinical waste bins.

Cleaning schedules were in place and completed. Bins were available for pharmaceutical waste. The Health Centre staff told us that they frequently communicated with the Infection Prevention and Control Team at NHS Lanarkshire.

Some sharps bins were not labelled appropriately with a start and finish date.

4.12 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to the assessment, care and treatment of those at risk of self‑harm or suicide.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

An MDMHT meeting comprising the Nursing Team, a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist met on a weekly basis to discuss patients. For patients with anxiety and depression, the team would use validated rating scales to assess them and monitor their progress and response to treatment such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Beck’s Depression Inventory.

For patients over the age of 55, the Psychiatrist and Registrars would use the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, in conjunction with the Standardised Mini Mental State Examination, to provide more detailed screening of cognitive abilities. This can be helpful in the diagnosis of dementia. This was practice worthy of sharing.

As detailed under QI 4.8, there were weaknesses in the way the nursing team documented patients’ assessments and developed person centre care plans.

The SPS ‘Talk to Me’ Strategy was in place and patients identified as being at risk of suicide or self-harm were referred to the Mental Health Team for assessment

4.13 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to the care and treatment of those exhibiting self‑harming and addictive behaviours.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Patients referred to the Addiction Team were seen for an initial assessment within the national target waiting times. The Team offered group interventions such as substance misuse – including new psychoactive substances, alcohol brief interventions and generic group work sessions offering support.

National Naloxone training was offered to all liberations and Naloxone was delivered to all who requested it.

Joint working with the Mental Health Team was evident, with case management being shared with patients who had addiction and mental health needs. As detailed under QI 4.4, the Addiction Team received external clinical supervision from a nurse consultant, and informal line management supervision from the Addictions/Mental Health Nurse Team Leader.

Prison staff reported that there had been an increase of incidence of prisoners becoming under the influence of NPS. This had placed additional strain on all prison staff. SPS, in conjunction with healthcare staff, had issued NPS advice leaflets to all prisoners as well as advice on harm reduction measures. CREW, a third sector organisation, had also visited the prison to deliver NPS information sessions to staff and prisoners. This was good practice. A number of prisoners had undergone peer training so they could advise other prisoners on the effects of NPS. This was good practice.

Those prisoners who wished to stop smoking could access support from the Stop Smoking Service. This Service offered one to one, group support and various nicotine reduction products. The Service was led by a Senior Nurse from the NHS Lanarkshire Stop Smoking Service, with support from prison based Addiction Caseworkers. The Service had had positive results which would hopefully continue in anticipation of the Scottish Government’s expectation that all Scottish prisons will be smoke free by the end of 2018. This was practice worthy of sharing.

Alcoholics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous groups also provided support for prisoners.

4.14 Health education activities for both prisoners and staff are implemented throughout the prison.

Rating: Good performance

There was a clear understanding of the value of implementing health education practices and health improvement within the prison. NHS Lanarkshire in partnership with HMP Shotts had developed a three year joint health improvement strategy (2017-2020).

A peer education project was run by a member of NHS Staff. The project aimed to train prisoners to become ‘peer educators’ on a range of health and wellbeing issues, so that they can convey health messages throughout the prison population. Currently six prisoners were trained to act as peer educators. As part of the peer education project prisoners had produced a healthy recipe booklet based on the canteen sheet, a steroid awareness leaflet, and at the time of the inspection were working on a film around raising awareness of mental health issues for the prisoner TV channel. The peer educators also promoted and supported other prisoners to participate in health events within the prison.

Other activities offered included:

Quarterly face to face stress control classes were offered to all staff. The model runs over six weeks and mimics the services available in Lanarkshire.
The Addictions Team offered group interventions such as substance misuse – including new psychoactive substances, alcohol brief interventions and generic group work sessions offering support.
Prisoners could access support to stop smoking.
Harm reduction sessions were provided in both a one to one and group setting during induction, pre-release and to all liberations.
National Naloxone training was offered to all liberations and Naloxone was delivered to all who requested it.
The gym offered various fitness classes to both staff and prisoners.

HMP Shotts is the first dementia-friendly prison in Scotland. In partnership with Alzheimer Scotland they were raising awareness of dementia with prisoners, their families and the prison workforce. Dementia awareness sessions had been delivered to both SPS staff and prisoners. We were told that this had been well received by prisoners, especially by those who had personal experience of dementia

4.15 Healthcare professionals working in the prison are able to demonstrate an understanding of the particular ethical and procedural responsibilities that attach to practice in a prison and to evidence that they apply these in their work.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Staff were able to explain the boundaries between professional and ethical issues. Healthcare staff were aware of the demands of delivering healthcare within the prison setting and the requirement for security. Regular meetings were held with prison management to discuss any issues, review incidents and to improve practice

4.16 Every prisoner on admission is given a health assessment, supplemented, where available, by the health record maintained by their community record. Care plans are instituted and implemented timeously.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

All prisoners transferred to HMP Shotts had a consultation with a registered Nurse. The nursing staff completed the admission/transfer pathway within Vision for every prisoner. During this assessment if any concerns were raised, either by the prisoner or nursing staff, appropriate action would be taken. This could be a referral, review or further assessment.

As detailed under QI 4.7, the room to see transferred prisoners in reception was not fit for purpose as it did not have a hand washing sink or privacy screen on the door. This was a concern.

4.17 Healthcare records are held for all prisoners. There are effective procedures to ensure that healthcare records accompany all prisoners who are transferred in or out of the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A clear process was in place for recording patient records, both coming in and out of the prison. Vision records were completed for all prisoners. Paper health records were held in a secure office within the Health Centre and could only be accessed by healthcare staff.

There was a clear process for the transfer of notes between establishments using secure bags.

4.18 Healthcare professionals exercise all the statutory duties placed on them to advise the governor or director of any situations in which conditions of detention or decisions about any prisoner could result in physical or psychological harm.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison had procedures in place for notifying the Governor of cases where there was a possibility that prisoners were at risk of physical or psychological harm.

The Healthcare Team recorded prisoners waiting on a mental health bed in case there was a significant delay.

Staff were clear in their duty to pass on any intelligence that may compromise the health and wellbeing of the prisoner, or the safe running of the prison.

We were told that prisoners who wanted to report as sick for work could see a member of the Nursing Team. Healthcare managers told Inspectors that this was not always the most appropriate use of clinical staff time, and that discussions were on going with SPS to review this practice.

4.19 Healthcare professionals fully undertake their responsibilities as described in the law and in professional guidance to assess, record and report any medical evidence of mistreatment of prisoners and to offer prisoners treatment needed as a consequence.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Healthcare staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their duty of care and escalated concerns through the Intelligence Reporting System. Regular communication between the healthcare and SPS management teams ensured concerns were discussed.

Prisoners who complained of mistreatment would be medically assessed and supported. Information affecting the welfare of prisoners would be passed on to the appropriate SPS manager who would then initiate an investigation and involve the police if necessary. Prisoners would be offered counselling and appropriate protective measures if required.

4.20 Effective measures that ensure the timeous attendance of appropriate healthcare staff in the event of medical emergencies are in place and are practised as necessary.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Designated staff carried radios to respond to medical emergencies. In addition to basic life support, nursing staff would benefit from additional training and development in advanced/extended clinical assessment skills to support them in responding to healthcare emergencies within the prison.

Emergency bags, portable oxygen, suction machines and defibrillators were located in each hall area and the Health Centre. Inspectors were satisfied with the process for checking the emergency equipment within the prison.

4.21 Appropriate steps are taken prior to release to assess a prisoner’s needs for on‑going care and to assist them in securing continuity of care from community health services.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Mental health nursing staff liaised with the appropriate Community Mental Health Teams to ensure continuity of care on release. Prior to release, patients were informed of what arrangements were to be made and appointment letters would be issued. Patients were given a two week supply of medication on liberation.

The Addictions Team were informed of forthcoming prison liberations at least a month in advance, and all prisoners would be offered a one to one appointment with an Addiction Worker. The Addiction Team would liaise with the Community Addiction Teams to ensure continuity of care on release for those patients in receipt of Opiate Replacement Therapy, and again patients would be issued appointment details by letter.

Healthcare staff made contact with the community Homeless Teams on behalf of patients who were being released with no fixed abode. As it was difficult to link these patients to the appropriate services, the Homeless Team could offer advice and support to the person about accessing services.

Depending on the area they were to attend, patients released on a Friday and who needed to obtain their weekend prescription of Methadone, often found it difficult to attend their appointments. In these instances healthcare staff would liaise with appropriate community colleagues and the pharmacy advisor.

Standard 5 - Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority

The prison performs the duties both to protect the public by detaining prisoners in custody and to respect the individual circumstances of each prisoner by maintaining order effectively, with courtesy and humanity.

Commentary

The prison ensures that the thorough implementation of security and supervisory duties is balanced by courteous and humane treatment of prisoners and visitors to the prison. Procedures relating to perimeter, entry and exit security, and the personal safety, searching, supervision and escorting of prisoners are implemented effectively. The level of security and supervision is not excessive.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

Staff and prisoner relationships in HMP Shotts were positive. This was particularly evident in the NIC, with a number of prisoners commenting on positive relationships with staff. There was, in general, a good balance between security and control with no evidence of excessive or inappropriate use of force. The only area of slight concern was in the Visit Room, where staff had commented, and it was observed, that there were boundary issues between some prisoners and their visitors. Staff would benefit from increased support from line management to address this.

Processes and systems existed which were commensurate with sound security and risk management. Searches were carried out regularly, movement of prisoners was managed appropriately, and visitors to the establishment were treated professionally with the appropriate balance between security and control. The Mandatory Drug Test Unit staff are to be commended for the work they do, which was not solely focussed on the punitive aspect of dealing with prisoners who may or may not have issues with drugs.

The management of prisoners’ property and cash was carried out in accordance with SPS policies and guidelines, with a clear emphasis on volumetric control.

Quality Indicators

5.1 Prison staff discharge all supervisory and security duties courteously and in doing so respect the individual circumstances of prisoners and visitors to the prison.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Throughout the inspection of HMP Shotts, it was noted by a number of inspectors that the application of both security and supervision was, in the main, proportionate. There was clear evidence of a fair and consistent approach by staff in their dealings with prisoners. There were excellent relationships between staff and prisoners, in particular within the NIC. However, on more than one occasion, evidence of boundary issues between prisoners and their visitors, in the Visit Room, were observed by Inspectors and reported by staff. Staff commented that they lacked support from management with regard to this issue.

5.2 The procedures for monitoring the prison perimeter are suitable and working effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were robust systems and procedures in place to ensure the integrity of the perimeter was maintained, and the Governor was provided with appropriate assurance. Amongst the daily checks which took place was a full perimeter check prior to the unlock of any prisoners. This had proved beneficial, and evidence was provided of forbidden articles retrieved during a recent first check of the perimeter.

5.3 The systems and procedures for the admission and release of prisoners are implemented effectively and courteously.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts does not receive prisoners directly from court; therefore the opportunities to observe the admissions process were much reduced. A liberation was observed which was carried out in a professional manner and the requisite checks were carried out timeously. The prisoner also took part in a pre‑liberation interview with the security First Line Manager. Although the prisoner was reticent about giving any detail on his stay in HMP Shotts, it was clear that this was part of the normal liberation process and gathered mixed results, dependent on the prisoner’s willingness to provide feedback.

5.4 The systems and procedures for access and egress of all other people are implemented effectively and courteously.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The vestibule area for welcoming visitors to HMP Shotts is modern. The staff were both professional and courteous and dealt with all visitors in an appropriate manner, ensuring they were processed timeously. The checks performed on visitors to prisoners were conducted in the manner expected from a professional staff group. The focus on security was well‑balanced with ensuring the visit gets off to a positive start.

5.5 The systems and procedures for controlling the entry and departure of goods to and from the prison are working effectively.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

There was a portable system in place for the management of goods to and from the prison. When vehicles entered the prison they were searched as was the driver. There was a portal metal detector in the vehicle lock which was used routinely. A minimum of three vehicle searches were observed weekly by a First Line Manager.

5.6 The risks presented to the community by any prisoner are assessed and appropriate security measures are adopted.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts had a comprehensive set of SOPs for planned and unplanned escorts. These procedures utilised a risk based approach to ensure that the escorting staff were appropriately briefed prior to departure, and in all cases Police Scotland were informed when any prisoner was being escorted outwith the establishment. Where a prisoner was subject to Special Security Measures there were specific actions identified to ensure that the appropriate measures were in place.

5.7 The risks presented to others in the prison by any prisoner are assessed and appropriate supervision is enforced.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison operates a system whereby any admissions are vetted by the Intelligence Management Unit. This takes account of any links the prisoner may have to existing prisoners or external allegiances.

The prison had two separate flats within Allanton hall for non‑offence protection prisoners, and the top flat of Allanton hall acted as the NIC. During the inspection the church service in Allanton hall was observed, where protection and mainstream prisoners mixed after careful vetting. This worked well and was well‑managed in a friendly atmosphere.

5.8 The risks presented by any prisoner to themselves are assessed and appropriate supervision is applied.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

At the time of inspection there were no prisoners on the ‘Talk to Me’ Strategy. During a nightshift visit the staff were dealing with a number of prisoners who were suspected of consuming home‑made alcohol. All paperwork was reviewed and the prisoners were cared for in an appropriate and professional manner. A number of staff spoken to were asked about strategies for managing prisoners at risk as a result of their presenting behaviours. All staff were fully aware of the relevant policies and how they would implement them should the need arise.

5.9 The systems and procedures for monitoring and supervising movements and activities of prisoners inside the prison are implemented effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts adopted a “route movement” approach to the mass movement of prisoners, which was observed on a number of occasions during the inspection. When prisoners moved en masse there were a number of staff involved, and they appeared to know what was expected of them. Processes for checking numbers of prisoners and that only authorised articles were taken on the route were rigorously enforced. All prisoners appeared to be well‑versed in this routine and it appeared to be normal practice.

5.10 The systems and procedures to maintain the security of prisoners when they are outside the prison are implemented effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The systems and procedures in place prior to despatching a prisoner under escort were both robust and thorough. All the requisite paperwork was in place and utilised as a matter of course. Prior to any escort carried out by prison staff a full briefing was carried out by either the visits or security First Line Manager. This included any risks or conditions applicable to the individual concerned. The required systems were in place prior to G4S escorting a prisoner from HMP Shotts, and where there were significant risks Police Scotland were informed routinely.

5.11 The prison disciplinary system is used appropriately and in accordance with the law.

Rating: Good performance

The Orderly Room was observed during the inspection. There were a number of prisoners who were in attendance for a variety of charges. It was clear that the adjudicating manager performed this role with more than a punitive aspect to the proceedings. All prisoners were given ample time and opportunity to contribute to the process, and all discussions were carried out in both a caring and professional manner. There was a direct focus on getting prisoners on board with the regime, and their participation through co‑operation rather than as a result of disciplinary action. Prisoners appeared to respond positively to the approach taken by the adjudicating manager.

5.12 The law concerning the searching of prisoners and their property is implemented thoroughly.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

On admission to HMP Shotts a thorough search of all prisoners’ property was carried out. Each prisoner was allocated a box and a rack with additional space for any excess property. This was then followed by cell searches, which take place a minimum of once every four months unless otherwise directed. The prisoner’s property card was routinely utilised during searches to determine the validity of the property contained within the cell. There was also a clear policy for the searching and packing up of any prisoner who was subject to a cell clearance or unplanned onward movement. The strategy for the searching, management and distribution of prisoners’ property appeared to work well.

5.13 The law concerning the testing of prisoners for alcohol and controlled drugs is implemented thoroughly.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

In SPS prisons, the testing for alcohol consumption can only take place where there is reasonable suspicion. At HMP Shotts prisoners were not given access to the community therefore that negated much of the risk associated with alcohol. No testing for alcohol took place as a matter of course.

Prisoners were routinely tested by the Drug Testing Unit, which had a dedicated team of staff. The staff were able to evidence the work they do and it was clear they were familiar with the present issues in relation to drugs within the establishment. The work they undertook was explained in a manner which did not solely focus on a punitive response to prisoners who may have issues with drugs. Staff spoke passionately about the referral process for those with addictions issues, and the work they did speaking to and advising prisoners of the options available to them.

5.14 Searches of buildings and grounds and other security checks are carried out thoroughly.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts had a policy in place for the searching of buildings and grounds. HMP Shotts utilised the SPS Dog Unit for searches, and evidence was provided of recent successes. In the event of an incident in any area, such as the suspected use of NPS, a full search was subsequently carried out. Evidence was provided where a full search of a work shed was undertaken following such a case.

5.15 The systems and procedures for tracking the movements of prisoners and reconciling prisoner numbers are implemented accurately.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

There were four numbers checks carried out each day, two of which were confirmed on PR2 as per SPS guidelines. The reconciliation of numbers was carried out by the team of staff in the Electronic Control Room, and this was witnessed by Inspectors. There was a slight concern around the provision of numbers of prisoners involved in purposeful activity. Although these figures were provided when requested, there were concerns around accuracy and the time taken to provide them.

5.16 The integrity of locking systems is audited effectively and with appropriate frequency.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Head of Operations took responsibility for authorisation of keys within HMP Shotts. An audit was carried out every six months and appropriate signatures were in place. This system provided the Governor with assurances regarding both the key and lock store. Any issues were dealt with as a priority.

5.17 Powers to confine prisoners to their cell, to segregate them or limit their opportunities to associate with others are exercised appropriately, with humanity and in accordance with the law.

Rating: Good performance

The SRU managed prisoners held under the formal Rule 95 process. Staff within the unit were selected and worked there on a permanent basis. A number of files relating to prisoners in the unit were checked, and all appeared to be in order. At the time of inspection the Unit housed one particular individual who had presented significant difficulties over a considerable timeframe. The work the staff had done with this prisoner, and indeed the prisoner cohort as a whole, was commendable. Prior to admission to the Unit every prisoner was case conferenced, as is the case prior to the prisoner exiting the Unit. There appeared to be genuine efforts made by the staff and managers to reintegrate prisoners, with a well thought through plan prior to returning them to mainstream accommodations.

5.18 The management of prisoners segregated from others is effected in accordance with the law and with regard for their continuing need for a stimulating programme of activities and social contact and for treatment aimed at enabling their return to normal conditions of detention as soon as can be achieved safely.

Rating: Good performance

As detailed under QI 5.17, prisoners segregated from others at HMP Shotts were housed within the SRU. The management of these prisoners was based on positive communications, aimed at successfully returning them to mainstream accommodation as soon as is safe to do so. There was also a coherent strategy to manage these individuals in a way that allowed some social contact, where possible. Each prisoner had a plan which was devised and updated accordingly through a case conferencing approach. A selection of paperwork was reviewed and found to be in accordance with Prison Rules and signed off by the appropriate signatory.

5.19 Powers to impose enhanced security measures on a prisoner are exercised appropriately and in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

At the time of the inspection there were a small number of prisoners subject to Special Security Measures. Each case was discussed in detail with the Head of Operations, and the paperwork reviewed during the inspection was found to be appropriate. Staff that had responsibility for these prisoners were well aware of the restrictions which had been imposed and the implications for all concerned. All instances where Special Security Measures had been applied were found to be in accordance with the law.

5.20 Force is used only when necessary and strictly in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

During the inspection there were no incidents viewed by Inspectors where control and restraint techniques had to be deployed. A review was carried out of “use of Force” forms from the last six months, and they appeared to be in order. Authorisation had been granted and the sample checked demonstrated that de‑escalation occurred more often than not during intervention by staff. All forms were checked and signed off routinely by the Head of Operations, who took personal responsibility for checking both the standard of completion and that correct practices were followed and appropriately authorised.

5.21 Physical restraints are only used when necessary and strictly in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A body belt was available for use however it was very rarely required. Appropriate training was delivered in the event that staff were required to use it, and a system was in place ensuring the requisite authority was requested and granted prior to deployment. Plasti‑cuffs were also available for use if required, and again staff were trained in their use. Appropriate arrangements were in place for collection and the use of handcuffs where prisoners were to be escorted out with the establishment.

5.22 Prisoners’ personal property and cash are recorded and, where appropriate, stored.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The property area within HMP Shotts Reception was clean, tidy and well‑ordered. There was a coherent and well‑established practice in place for the management of prisoners’ property, which included valuable property. There was also a well‑managed and understood practice in place for both the receipt of new property, and the exchanging of old property for new items that had been received into the establishment. There was also a well‑practiced approach to the volumetric control aspect of long‑term prisoners’ property, ensuring that prisoners had sufficient property without rendering the storage facility unworkable due to overloading.

Prisoners’ personal cash was recorded and allocated in line with SPS policy. Access to personal cash and property was also granted as per SPS guidelines. Property checks were carried out by senior managers routinely.

Standard 6 - Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment

A climate of mutual respect exists between staff and prisoners. Prisoners are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and their future. Their rights to statutory protections and complaints processes are respected.

Commentary

Throughout the prison, staff and prisoners have a mutual understanding and respect for each other and their responsibilities. They engage with each other positively and constructively. Prisoners are kept well informed about matters which affect them and are treated humanely and with understanding. If they have problems or feel threatened they are offered effective support. Prisoners are encouraged to participate in decision making about their own lives. The prison co‑operates positively with agencies which exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

During the period of the inspection it was evident that staff and prisoner relationships were built on a solid foundation of mutual understanding. There was an experienced staff group who understood the requirements of managing a population of long‑term prisoners, and order and control was maintained through positive relationships. However, if appropriate, staff would also use their authority to challenge unacceptable behaviour by prisoners.

From induction and throughout their sentence, prisoners were kept informed about matters affecting them, and were encouraged through the formal Prisoner Information and Action Committees (PIACs) to contribute constructively to subjects such as their canteen and recreation choices. There was no formal Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme in operation but there were different examples of where positive behaviour by prisoners was rewarded.

Communication with prisoners was generally good, prisoners were kept informed of avenues of personal support and means of making complaints, and the prison co‑operated effectively with all statutory agencies in the criminal justice system.

Quality Indicators

6.1 Relationships between staff and prisoners are respectful. The use of disrespectful language or behaviour is not tolerated.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

It was observed throughout the inspection that relationships between staff and prisoners were positive, with the use of authority proportionate to the circumstances being addressed. It was conveyed consistently to the Inspectors by both staff and prisoners that positive relationships were the foundation for working and living in a calm relaxed atmosphere. This was undoubtedly assisted by a very experienced staff group, with a large number of staff having many years’ service.

There had recently been a slight increase in levels of violence between prisoners; however violence against staff remained at a relatively low level. On one occasion during the inspection a prisoner was witnessed behaving in a confrontational manner to an Officer. The Officer managed the situation in a confident, robust and fair manner, and the prisoner was eventually placed on report for using inappropriate language. He was subsequently found guilty in the Orderly Room.

A random sample of PCF2 were selected and were found to have been fully investigated by the Governor.

6.2 Staff respect prisoners’ needs for privacy and personal life.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts was redeveloped five years ago on the site of the original prison, and the residential and activities buildings were of a modern design. Prisoners were provided with in‑cell showers, ensuring a degree of personal privacy.

There were interview rooms on all halls which allowed staff to interview prisoners in an appropriate setting and maintain confidentiality. Legal visits were observed during the inspection and they were conducted in a separate area within legal booths. More generally, across the prison there are a number of areas where confidential interviews can take place.

6.3 Staff respect prisoners’ rights to confidentiality in their dealings with them.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were interview rooms on all halls which allowed staff to interview prisoners in an appropriate setting and maintain confidentiality. This was especially important for meetings between prisoners and their Personal Officers.

There was a robust process in place for the management of all mail entering the prison. All legal and privileged correspondence was handed over unopened, and a weekly report was generated for the Governor. This process was observed, and a random sample of legal and privileged mail logs were scrutinised. This process was widely understood and was described by both staff and prisoners in accordance with policy.

6.4 Staff achieve an environment within the prison that is orderly and predictable. Their use of authority in achieving this is seen by prisoners as legitimate.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prisoners interviewed during the inspection understood the operation of the daily routine. They commented positively on their relationships with staff and confirmed that staff, on the whole, treated them in a fair and consistent manner.

However, prisoners expressed a great degree of frustration at current triage arrangements, stating that it often caused unnecessary friction with staff, and resulted in the prisoner eventually being placed on report and appearing in the Orderly Room. There is a clear and pressing need for prison management to address this issue with NHS colleagues, and review current arrangements for prisoners’ triage.

6.5 Staff challenge prisoners’ unacceptable behaviour or attitudes whenever they become aware of it. They do this in a way that is assertive and courteous.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Both staff and prisoners reported that the use of authority when required was proportionate and deemed fair in the vast majority of situations. It was conveyed by both staff and prisoners that in the main relationships were positive. Prisoners understood the need for the exercise of authority, on occasion, to maintain order in a potentially difficult environment.

However, there was confusion amongst staff on standards of prisoner behaviour during domestic visits. This reflected a wider issue, and over the course of the inspection staff voiced confusion about acceptable standards of prisoner behaviour in the Visits Hall. Management should establish a clear position on what are deemed acceptable behaviours during domestic visits, and ensure this is communicated to staff and prisoners.

6.6 Any limitations imposed on prisoners’ freedoms or access to facilities are justified and the reasons for them are courteously communicated to the prisoners.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The application of Rule 95 removing prisoners from normal location to the SRU was found to be managed correctly. Appropriate approval had been granted, timescales were met, prisoner representations were afforded and case conferences were conducted in line with policy. The enthusiasm of officers in the SRU for their role was obvious, seeing the commitment to reintegrate prisoners as a key factor of their responsibilities.

During the inspection it was reported that two prisoners who had been out of circulation for extended periods of time had been successfully reintegrated into the prisoner population. Work was currently underway with another complex individual, with progress being made at the time of the inspection. Staff described the autonomy to make decisions and work closely with the prisoners as a key indicator to their success.

6.7 The operation of the system of privileges promotes a climate of activity and purpose, prisoners’ responsibility for their own affairs and good face to face relationships with staff.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There was no Incentive and Earned Privilege system in place within HMP Shotts, however prisoners generally felt that they were fairly dealt with and had the opportunity to influence their environment to a degree.

6.8 The system by which prisoners may apply and be selected for paid work reflects as fully as possible systems of job application and selection within the community.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners were advised at induction of the process to apply for paid work within the prison. It was done through the Labour Allocation Board application form. Prisoners were paid in line with the Prisoner Earning Policy, and could be paid a bonus based on individual output.

Prisoners were allocated to a job after considering experience, behaviours, recommendations from staff and drug test history. Prisoners from ethnic minorities, foreign nationals and disabled prisoners were considered, and were subject to the same criteria as set out for all prisoners. Prisoners who cannot understand English will have the outcome communicated to them through translation services.

A robust process was found to be in place for the removal of prisoners from any work party. At the time of the inspection there was no prisoner waiting list for job allocations, this was reviewed weekly.

6.9 Prisoners are consulted about the range of recreational activities available to them.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

PIAC meetings with prisoners were held monthly and quarterly, and included discussion of day‑to‑day issues such as the prison canteen, catering and recreational provision. A cross‑section of staff participated in the meetings, along with prisoner representation from each hall. The staff present could include the Chaplain, Head of Operations, Link Centre Manager, Operations Manager, Visits Manager, Risk and Interventions Manager and the Learning Centre Manager. Prisoners were advised of meetings verbally by staff and via posters on the hall information boards. Prisoners applied to attend via application sheets available at the staff desk area. Application sheets were then sent to security for appropriate checks to be completed.

6.10 Prisoners are consulted about the range of products available through the prison canteen.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There was a dedicated PIAC meeting held quarterly to address the range of products available in the prison canteen, and requests from the wider population were considered at this meeting. The Catalogue of National Retail Products is updated every three months. On completion of the national update of products, the prisoner group is advised and a PIAC meeting will be held to discuss the products on offer. If there are products that the Prisoner Group want removed and replaced with another product, it will be discussed and agreed on the basis that current stock would be used prior to the addition of further products being introduced. There were 178 products available for purchase.

6.11 The systems for reserving places on recreational and cultural activities are equitable between prisoners and allow them to exercise personal choice.

Overall rating: Generally acceptable performance

Events taking place across the prison were offered to mainstream prisoners, and offered separately to protection prisoners. This ensured that all prisoners were afforded the same opportunities. Protection prisoners mixed with mainstream prisoners during most church events and during visits sessions. It was highlighted during the inspection that interest from protection prisoners in attending mixed events was low in comparison to designated protection‑only activities. Prison management should explore options for providing protection prisoners with equitable access to recreational and cultural activities.

6.12 The systems for regulating prisoners’ access to money held in their prison account and their own property allow them to exercise personal choice within the constraints of the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners had access to their Prisoners Personal Cash (PPC) and earnings, and there were robust procedures in place to provide them with access to their funds and regulate their expenditure. They were provided with a canteen list every Tuesday showing their PPC and earnings, along with a standard purchase price list and a statement of what they were free to spend that week.

6.13 The limits on the actions staff can take in implementing security procedures are observed.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Records were inspected for Special Security Measures, Closed Visit notifications, Rule 95 and Rule 41 applications. All documentation demonstrated robust, rigorous and consistent processes, with input provided from across the prison. This served to prevent inappropriate actions by staff. It was also evident that, as part of the processes, prisoners were given the opportunity to make representations in all cases, of the application of the above‑mentioned security measures.

6.14 The rules in relation to medical supervision of activities and persons in circumstances of increased risk of harm or mistreatment are observed.

Overall rating: Generally acceptable performance

A prisoner was observed who was subject to Rule 41, and was being held within the SRU. He had complex mental health needs and appropriately the prison had sought support from the Mental Welfare Commission.

More generally, the prisons ‘Talk to Me’ Strategy and specific care plans dictate the details of the medical supervision of activities in particular cases.

During the inspection an MDMHT meeting was observed. A number of cases were discussed and actions were appropriately managed. Due to staffing levels the requisite core attendance was not achieved which meant that one case could not be considered. Prison management should endeavour to ensure the correct representation from across the prison for MDMHT meetings.

6.15 Procedures and decisions conform to established standards of natural and administrative justice.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As detailed under QI 6.13, records were inspected for Special Security Measures, Closed Visit notifications, and Rule 95 and Rule 41 applications. The documentation demonstrated robust, rigorous and consistent processes, which served to prevent inappropriate actions by staff. Prisoners were given the opportunity to make representations in all cases.

In terms of Orderly Room decisions, prisoners can appeal them by submitting PAF1 forms. In the period examined between April and the inspection in August 17, there were 29 PAF1 forms submitted. Seventeen appeals were rejected, five upheld and two partially upheld.

6.16 Prisoners’ international human rights as asserted in law are respected.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was discussed during the induction process. Posters highlighting the ECHR were also available in the halls. Prisoners were aware of the ECHR, but they were unfamiliar with what this meant to them. As far as the prison was aware, no prisoners had reported a breach of the ECHR during 2017.

There was provision for additional money to be placed into Foreign National prisoners’ telephone accounts to assist them to remain in contact with their family abroad.

An Equality & Diversity Strategy Group was in place and was chaired by the Governor or Deputy Governor, and the population was monitored against the nine protected characteristics.

6.17 Prisoners are kept well informed about prison procedures and how to access services available to them.

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

From the induction process and throughout their sentence, prisoners were kept well informed about prison procedures and accessing services. This was supplemented by prisoner information boards which were located throughout the prison. Prisoners were advised that if they had a question that could not be answered by published notices, they should ask staff. Information leaflets on progression and HDC were widely available across all areas of the prison.

Prisoners also had designated Personal Officers with whom they met formally at a minimum of every two months, but with whom they could engage and interact with on a routine basis.

6.18 Prisoners are kept well informed about events taking place in the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were regular PIAC meetings which addressed, amongst other important elements of prisoners’ lives, events taking place in the prison. The minutes of these meetings were made available in all halls.

6.19 The prison reliably passes critical information between prisoners and their families.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners were free to contact their family on a daily basis using the prisoner telephones. When, for example, a prisoner was transferred out of the prison to outside hospital, there was a local policy in accord with Prison Rule 42, whereby the prison contacted the family if the prisoner was agreeable. The local policy was recently updated, and was tested during the inspection when a prisoner was admitted to hospital and detained. The prison made contact with his family to keep them advised of the circumstances.

6.20 Prisoners’ access to information necessary to safeguard themselves against mistreatment or arbitrary decisions is observed.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The complaints process was described in full to prisoners as part of the induction process. During the inspection, prisoners demonstrated that they fully understood the process, and advised that the requisite forms were readily available on the hall. Prisoners were also able to elaborate on the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, should a complaint not be resolved.

The Independent Prison Monitoring (IPM) process was fully embedded in the prison, and initial contact could be made by telephone or through a written application deposited in a locked box on the hall.

Complaints raised in PCF1 and PCF2 forms, and made to IPM staff, tended to focus on programmes, progression, health, and the education contract. There were some complaints about prisoners’ treatment by members of staff.

6.21 The prison complaints resolution system works well.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

During the inspection the complaints process was examined in detail, with a particular focus on complaints in the period from April 2017 until the time of the inspection. A random selection were examined and three of the prisoners who had made a complaint were interviewed. All were content that their complaint had been managed appropriately.

An analysis of the complaints process evidenced that a number of complaints had not been dealt with within the 20 day timescale. The prison stated they were aware of this issue, and that a new auditable process for complaints was being created to ensure that responses met the required timescale. This process should be introduced as soon as possible.

6.22 The NHS complaints resolution system works well in the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory Satisfactory performance

Patient feedback and complaint forms were available in each hall. There was a clear process in place for managing complaints and responding to feedback from prisoners.

Due to the volume of “complaints” received and to ensure they were responded to within the required timeframe, the two Clinical Managers answered the majority of complaints. This process required a significant amount of resource and time.

6.23 The system for allowing prisoners to book interviews with independent prison monitors works well.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The IPM process was fully discussed at the prisoner induction. Posters advertising the service and telephone numbers were also located on every hall. A recognised process was in place for prisoners to contact the IPM, which included making initial contact by telephone or through a written application deposited in a locked box on the hall. Staff and prisoners confirmed that they were fully aware how to access IPM staff, and no prisoners complained of difficulties in gaining access.

6.24 The prison gives every assistance to agencies which exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison ensured that prisoners were made aware of the role of different statutory agencies and sought to provide the requisite access to these agencies. There were no reports of any difficulties in this area.

6.25 Prisoners are afforded unimpeded and confidential access to legal advice, the courts and agencies which exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A number of agencies have been permitted access to the prison. For example solicitors, social work, IPMs and HMIPS representatives and staff were aware of prisoners’ right to see and speak in private to such individuals.

6.26 Citizens of states other than the UK are afforded confidential access to their states’ representatives. Refugees and stateless persons are afforded privileged access to a consular office of their choice and to organisations or agencies that protect their interests.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Three prisoners falling into this category confirmed that they were provided with this information as part of the induction. The information was also available in Reception and on prisoner notice boards in the Visits Hall and residential halls. Staff in the Visits Hall were able to demonstrate their understanding of the matter should a Consular Officer arrive at the prison for the purpose of a visit.

6.27 Prisoners are afforded confidential access to members of national and international parliaments who represent them.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Information was provided on prisoner information boards about this right of access. This was recognised by prisoners but they remained unsure of the purpose of this access or under what circumstances this requirement might arise.

Standard 7 - Purposeful activity

All prisoners are encouraged to use their time in prison constructively. Positive family and community relationships are maintained. Prisoners are consulted in planning the activities offered.

The prison assists prisoners to use their time purposefully and constructively. Prisoners’ sentences are managed appropriately to prepare them for returning to their community. The prison provides a broad range of activities, opportunities and services based on the profile of needs of the prisoner population. Prisoners are supported to maintain positive relationships with family and friends in the community. Prisoners have the opportunity to participate in recreational, sporting, religious and cultural activities.

Inspection findings

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Overall there was some really good work being done in relation to purposeful activity. The prison appeared to be focused on maintaining and building relationships with prisoners’ families, and there was some excellent work being done in terms of family inductions. A family hub was due to open in October 2017, and this will further assist in building these relationships.

Processes were being followed in terms of progression, but there were some issues around access to programmes and Psychological Risk Assessments (PRAs), which were impacting on prisoners progressing to less secure conditions. There appeared to be a gap for those who were liberated from this prison, and this was an area of concern.

HMP Shotts houses the NIC for the SPS. This facility had a capacity for 68 men who were in the initial stages of custodial sentences of eight years or longer, including those sentenced to life imprisonment. The centre provided a supportive regime for prisoners, for up to 18 months of their sentence, before they were transferred to their allocated establishment. A comprehensive and helpful information pack was provided to new arrivals which outlined how the NIC operated and what prisoners could expect during their stay. The centre aims to build positive relationships between staff and prisoners from the beginning of their sentence.

The centre was a good example of proactive population management. During the inspection, the NIC was well‑resourced and all staff were experienced practitioners. All purposeful activities provided in the NIC were of a high standard, and prisoners engaged well in the range of activities offered. On arrival, each prisoner was assessed to determine which selection of classes and activities were best suited to their needs, and an individual programme of activities was agreed. Prisoners had opportunities to attend education classes delivered by Learning Centre staff and by SPS instructors, attend the Fitness Centre, and to participate in a wide range of self‑help and awareness raising classes. These included classes in anxiety and sleep awareness, basic food hygiene, First Aid, Respect Me, the START programme, human rights, gym‑based exercise, personal fitness, health and nutrition, drug awareness, positive parenting, literacy and numeracy, craft workshop, Mindfulness and a self‑reflection programme called Airmaps. Prisoners in the NIC had access to the library twice per week and some prisoners engaged in vocational work parties. Peer mentors were used well to support prisoners who had recently moved to the NIC.

Quality Indicators

7.1 The prison maximises the opportunities for prisoners to meet with their families and friends.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison had a good range of visit sessions, 19 in total with a selection of children and families visits. There were leaflets and documentation available detailing the visit times, how they could be booked, what to expect when coming to the prison and the facilities available. Discussion with staff identified that there were several events put on during the visits, also by the Chaplaincy to help foster relationships with friends and family. In the main the prisoners stated they were content with the number of visits available and saw them in a positive light. They felt that the range and flexibility of the visits were excellent, in that if there was space staff would accommodate them at short notice. Additionally there were a significant number of family bonding visits.

7.2 The arrangements made for admitting family members and friends into the prison are welcoming and offer appropriate support.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The visit staff were friendly and welcoming and undertook their security work in a professional manner without being overbearing or intrusive. Family members could receive an induction or attend awareness days to allow them to see what prison conditions were like. Staff, visitors and prisoners commented that this was a useful process and helped families understand the conditions and the prison regime. It also allowed families to link in with other agencies such as Families Outside.

7.3 Any restrictions placed on the conditions under which prisoners may meet with their families or friends take account of the importance placed on the maintenance of good family and social relationships throughout their sentence.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Measures were put into place to ensure that all prisoners who were in SRU or on protection were well managed and had access to visits. They had the same access to visits as other prisoners and this was managed through controlled movement, and aided by the design of the Visit Room. Closed visits were regularly reviewed to ensure that the rationale for placing an individual on such visits remained valid. It was clear that the system was well‑managed and transparently applied on an individualised basis. It is worthy of note that individuals on closed visits could still access family visits with their children, but be subject to closed visits at other times, which was commendable.

7.4 The atmosphere in the visit room is friendly and, while effective measures are adopted to ensure the security of the prison and safety of those taking visits, supervision is unobtrusive.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The atmosphere in the Visit Room was relaxed and there appeared to be minimal tension during the visits observed by HMIPS. Prisoners noted that they felt comfortable at visits and that it was always relaxed.

The Visit Room was well set up in order to facilitate prisoners in SRU, protection prisoners and mainstream prisoners. This appeared to help manage any potential issues and conflict.

7.5 Opportunities are found in the prison for prisoners to interact with family members in a variety of parental and other family member roles.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were several opportunities available to prisoners to help them interact with their families. There were family bonding visits which allowed fathers and grandfathers to meet with their children and have time to work and play together. There were events put on by the Chaplaincy and the prison to maximise family contact, as well provide an opportunity for families who attended ICM case conferences to have some time with their family either before or after the case conference, where feasible. There was a Family Strategy Group that met quarterly to discuss any issues and how to progress any on‑going actions.

7.6 Where it is not possible for families to use the normal arrangements for visits, the prison is proactive in taking alternative steps to assist prisoners in sustaining family relationships.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

In the halls ‘email a prisoner’ and virtual visits were advertised. However senior management noted that there was a low uptake for them. When speaking to hall staff they noted that they knew the equipment was there, but did not think it worked and believed it was for court cases, ICM or parole purposes. Management should ensure that staff are fully aware how they access and utilise these alternative options for maintaining family contact.

7.7 The arrangements to facilitate a free flow of communication between prisoners and their families help the prisoners to sustain family ties.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners stated that they were satisfied with access to the telephones, and could speak with their families at times that suited their needs. HMIPS was encouraged to note that the e mail a prisoner scheme is available in Shotts and facilitates incoming emails and replies.

7.8 Prisoners and where appropriate their families, participate in their case management. Prisoners are consulted about case management decisions reached.

Rating: Good performance

The case management of prisoners was managed well in the prison. All residential staff were given a booklet which outlined what was expected of them as a Personal Officer. The roll‑out of this was coupled with training for staff around what was expected of them, as well as training on how to update PR2.

In ICMs prisoners were asked if they wanted their family to attend, and then prison based Social Work contacted the families to ask if they would like to attend. This took place a minimum of a month prior to the ICM case conferences. Prisoners received their ICM paperwork at least a week in advance. There were two ICM co‑ordinators, both of whom had a good understanding of the process, who evidenced that they offered an asset based approach to the case conference and were able to challenge any negative behaviour.

The prison was in the process of training staff in a new form of case management, a targeted ICM where case conferences would be held on a needs focussed basis. If a prisoner was doing well then there would be no need to offer a case conference for that particular year. Initial feedback was promising and should allow better individualised case management.

The Risk Management Team (RMT) process in HMP Shotts was an area of strength, as was having the prisoner attend their RMT to allow them to put their case forward, and for any contentions to be discussed and explored with the prisoner.

Prisoners were offered to complete a survey following an ICM or an RMT to allow them to provide feedback on how they found it. Prisoners who had recently participated in an RMT noted that they liked the process, particularly being able to put their points across. However, they found it slightly overwhelming being in a room with all of the managers.

7.9 Prisoners are encouraged to maintain and develop a range of social relationships that will help in their successful return to their communities on release.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Chaplaincy offered a Throughcare Service, whereby they tried to link those who attended church regularly with a community/congregation in their area of release. They got to meet the minister of the area who in turn would introduce them to members of the congregation, to assist with starting to build social relationships.

Whilst prisoners being liberated were long term prisoners, management should consider deploying something similar to the Throughcare Support Officers (TSOs) that work with short term prisoners in other establishments. There were approximately 50–60 liberations from HMP Shotts every year, and TSOs may help develop positive and supportive social relationships on return to the community after a significant period in custody.

7.10 The prison operates an individualised approach to effective prisoner case management.

Rating: Good performance

A series of case studies were presented to the inspection team. They evidenced individualised approaches to case management, through utilising multi‑disciplinary meetings with social work, NHS, Psychology and the Chaplaincy. It was evident in these cases that the measures had been put into place to maximise the opportunity for prisoners to succeed and move forward with their sentence. In speaking to prisoners they felt that overall HMP Shotts operated this well. They felt treated as individuals but voiced concerns around access to programmes and timescales waiting for PRAs to be conducted. However this was a national resourcing issue.

The passport book for all residential staff emphasised the importance of individual contact, and from discussions with staff and prisoners this appeared to be being done.

An individualised approach to case management was apparent in the NIC, where prisoners who were located there had an initial case conference to ascertain support they may require. The outcomes of these case conferences were reviewed as required, approximately every six months. However if further input was required then the case conference would be brought forward accordingly. There was no timescale attached to those in the NIC and therefore there was flexibility to support those housed there.

7.11 The systems and procedures operated by the prison to identify or select prisoners for release or periods of leave outside the prison are implemented fairly and effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The RMT process in HMP Shotts was well embedded and well run. No prisoners were assessed as suitable for access to the community without having been reviewed by the RMT. As noted previously, the attendance of the prisoner at the RMT was positive and something that should be actively encouraged in all establishments.

7.12 Sentence management procedures are implemented as prescribed and take account of critical dates for progression, release on parole or licence.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The ICM, RMT and HDC processes were monitored by a dedicated administrator. Each member of staff maintained a database held on SharePoint, to ensure relevant paperwork and sentence management procedures were followed. All of the other staff could assist should the member of staff responsible for a particular area be on annual leave or out of the office.

The Programmes and Generic Programme Assessment databases were controlled and monitored by an administrator and assured by the Programmes Manager, to ensure that all prisoners would undergo a generic programmes assessment in accordance with their critical dates, where feasible. Programme Case Management Boards were held every two weeks and were attended by several disciplines.

7.13 The risk management measures that have to be observed in respect of prisoners serving Orders of Lifelong Restriction and those subject to Multi‑Agency Public Protection Arrangements are implemented.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

In terms of Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) management, the Psychology Team were responsible for their case management. They met on the last Monday of every month to discuss the OLR cases, share information and to plan future workload. Each member of Psychology Management had cases they were allocated, and were aiming to meet with each OLR prisoner once per month. This process was well structured, however staff shortages meant that staff were stretched and the once per month meetings were not always achieved.

Those subject to MAPPA restrictions were monitored by the Parole Desk when prisoners began their application for parole. There was a database to ensure that relevant actions were monitored and maintained. This was quality assured by the Offender Outcomes Unit Manager.

7.14 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of employment and training opportunities available to prisoners.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The prison offered a good range of purposeful activity appropriate to the ability, preference and age of most prisoners. There were sufficient employment and training opportunities offered for almost all prisoners. Work party opportunities were available in wood machining, bicycle repair, wood assembly, metal fabrication, textiles, recycling, charity crafts and occupational training. Employment work party opportunities were available in laundry, kitchens, gardens, industrial cleaning and opportunities to become passmen.

The prison was accredited to deliver a range of vocational training qualifications up to Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) level 5, which were relevant to the activities offered in the industrial workshops and employment work parties. Many prisoners had been successful in obtaining certificates for the Scottish Vocational Qualification Performing Manufacturing Operations in joinery and metalwork, and for the Velotech Cycle Mechanics qualification. Many prisoners gained useful employability certificates in the British Institute of Cleaning Science (BICS), manual handling and food hygiene. Smaller groups of prisoners were successful in gaining certificates for Health and Safety, Fire Awareness, forklift operations and Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland. The level of vocational awards offered did not extend beyond SCQF level 5, which limited the progression opportunities for most of the prison population who were serving longer sentences. A few prisoners from the woodworking and bicycle repair workshops had used the vocational skills and employability certificates gained in prison to successfully obtain employment on their liberation.

7.15 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of educational, including physical and health educational, activities available to the prisoners.

Rating: Poor performance

Overall, the range of educational programmes on offer was not sufficiently wide enough to provide all prisoners with the choice and depth of subjects to progress beyond basic levels, or meet the needs of specific prisoners.

The Learning Centre provided educational opportunities for up to 40 prisoners, with 37 classes timetabled each week for mainstream prisoners and a further eight classes for protection prisoners. Learning Centre staff also provided eight classes each week for protection prisoners in the residential halls, and literacy classes in the NIC. However, no activities were scheduled to engage prisoners in learning activities on Friday afternoons or at weekends.

There were insufficient opportunities for prisoners to access support for numeracy, with only one session of mathematics scheduled each week for mainstream prisoners, and one for protection prisoners. A limited number of other subjects were available which included art, creative writing and music, along with opportunities to contribute to the editing and production of the STIR magazine.

At the time of the inspection, the range of learning activities available to prisoners was substantially reduced from the planned timetable. SPS had transferred the contract to deliver educational activity at HMP Shotts from New College Lanarkshire to Fife College on the 1 August 2017. In the lead‑up to this contract transfer, staff concerns and uncertainty about their employment terms had impacted significantly on the staffing complement and resources available for the delivery of classes.

All Learning Centre staff were suitably qualified and experienced and used a range of appropriate learning activities, including group work and discussion. They used their subject knowledge and skills well to engage prisoners in their learning. Prisoners participated well in the limited range of learning activities provided in the Learning Centre during the inspection. These were core skills sessions for literacy and numeracy at SCQF levels 2‑6, art, Open University (OU) modules and STIR magazine. ICT at SCQF levels 3‑7 was also scheduled that week, however this was cancelled as no learning materials or ICT equipment were available. This situation had continued for several weeks and prisoners were frustrated that they could not access ICT classes.

A few prisoners were successful in achieving modules with the OU and were supported well by Learning Centre staff in their studies. In the last 12 months, 108 prisoners achieved awards from SQA and other awarding bodies. However, most of these awards were limited to core skills, English for Speakers of Other Languages, and modules in history or modern studies.

Management must give high priority to ensuring that sufficient learning opportunities, a wider range of educational programmes and appropriate levels of qualification are offered to all prisoners.

7.16 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of therapeutic, treatment and cognitive development opportunities available to prisoners.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

There was an appropriate range of interventions available to prisoners held in HMP Shotts. There were leaflets and notices on the notice boards detailing the range of programmes available. The leaflets however needed to be updated to reflect the current range of programmes.

There were a significant number of complaints about the access to programmes from prisoners, as they did not feel there was enough being delivered to meet the demand. In discussions with prisoners they felt aggrieved that the delay in attending was putting more time onto their sentence, especially life sentence prisoners. Management need to address this perception, as HMIPS were assured this was not the case and that prisoners' access to programmes was scheduled to their critical dates.

Staff in the NIC delivered a range of groups and these were often developed by the Officers in the Unit and then discussed with Psychology and Social Work to ensure they were targeting the problematic areas. They were delivered exclusively in the NIC and targeted areas such as perspective taking, bullying and nutrition. Discussions with prisoners in the NIC noted that they were beneficial and they enjoyed attending them.

7.17 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of social and relational skills training activities available to prisoners.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

HMP Shotts benefits from an excellent training kitchen which was meant to provide life skill training. Unfortunately it appeared to be unused. Management should ensure that this facility, and the opportunities it can provide, are made available to all prisoners ahead of their liberation or onward move to less secure establishments. Prisoners stated that they felt this would be beneficial to them, as they had been in custody for a significant period of time and developing such skills would aid them upon liberation.

7.18 All purposeful activities provided are of good quality and encourage the engagement of prisoners. Prisoners are consulted in planning the activities offered.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The vocational workshop facilities, machinery and tools were of a professional standard, and prisoners working on tasks achieved good levels of competence in a safe training environment. The quality of purposeful activity and training undertaken by prisoners in the vocational workshops and prison work parties was good. Prisoners in the majority of production workshops engaged well in purposeful activity and staff supported prisoners well during their vocational training.

However, in a number of the vocational workshops, particularly the engineering workshop, up to half the work party was not engaged in any purposeful activity as there was insufficient work available for prisoners. This demotivated prisoners to maintain their attendance. Management must ensure that prisoners attending work parties are fully engaged.

In all vocational activity there were constructive and respectful relationships between prisoners and training staff, which provided informal opportunities for prisoners to influence some aspects of the scheduled activities. However, there were no formal opportunities for prisoners to contribute to the planning of activities, and no formal arrangements for the recruitment of peer mentors to support and advise their peers.

The Learning Centre provided a welcoming environment for prisoners, which encouraged them to engage in good quality learning activities. The Centre was well‑resourced and had a good supply of art materials. Prisoners enjoyed their studies and appreciated the support provided by centre staff, which helped prisoners to engage well in their chosen subjects and make learning interesting. Almost all prisoners were well‑motivated and enthusiastic about their studies.

Learning Centre staff responded well to feedback from prisoners on their suggestions about improvements to their learning experience and the activities provided. However the regular prisoner surveys and annual Portfolio Review, which had previously been carried out to engage prisoners in planning and evaluating the learning provision, had not been completed since 2015. The absence of formal and systematic quality processes created a missed opportunity to record and improve the quality of learning activities. Management must ensure that this activity is reinstated as a matter of some urgency.

7.19 The scheduling of activities and individual prisoner’s access to them is organised so that each prisoner takes part in the activities agreed for them.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

All prisoners were given an opportunity to engage in purposeful activity in the vocational workshops, prison work parties, the Learning Centre and in the Fitness Centre. Prisoners were informed of the range of activities available to them during the induction process, and opportunities were promoted by their Personal Officer.

The prison provided sufficient opportunities for almost all prisoners to engage in purposeful activity. Approximately a quarter of the prison population were regularly employed as passmen in the residential halls and across the prison estate. Most prisoners in work parties preferred to take part in workshop activities which offered a higher level of pay, and the number of prisoners attending production workshops with contract obligations was high. However, attendance at other workshops was lower, averaging around 55%. Where prisoners did not attend their scheduled activity, there were accurate records which indicated most prisoners did not attend due to declaring health issues or refusing to work.

The planned Learning Centre timetable had an appropriate balance of learning activities for mainstream and protected prisoners, in proportion to the prison population. However, at the time of the inspection, the impact of the new Learning Centre contract significantly reduced the scheduled learning activities available to prisoners. Participation rates at timetabled classes in the Learning Centre were low, with an average attendance of approximately 50%, and high numbers of prisoners recorded as ‘refused to attend’ or ‘other prison activities’.

The combination of insufficient available work in vocational workshops, prisoners declaring they were unfit for work, redeployment of Fitness Centre staff to security duties across the prison, prisoners engaged in other prison activities and prisoners refusing to work, had an adverse impact on the number of prisoners actively engaged in purposeful activity.

7.20 All prisoners have the opportunity to take exercise for at least an hour in the open air every day. Provision is made for this to be realistically available in all seasons and conditions of the weather.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All prisoners had the opportunity to access an hour of exercise in the open air at least once a day. This was evidenced in the general, protection and SRU populations. Whilst wet weather clothing was available, its level of protection from the elements appeared limited.

7.21 Prisoners are assisted in their religious observances.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Overall prisoners were given the opportunity to practice their religious observances, in that there were Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic Chaplains who attended the prison. There was an Imam who attended, however due to illness he had not attended in the six weeks previous to the inspection. There were no issues in getting prisoners to attend the services. There were events put on by the church to spark debate as well as offer counselling. The Chaplain noted that there were volunteers who offered support for the prisoners, and would come in to visit those who did not have any visits. The prisoners noted that the provision for services was good, and they felt that they were supported in their religious practice. However the Islamic prisoners voiced their concerns over the lack of an Imam.

7.22 Prisoners are afforded access to a library which is well-stocked with materials that take account of the cultural and religious backgrounds of the prisoner population.

Rating: Poor performance

The library was located within the Learning Centre and provided a welcoming environment for prisoners to access a selection of books, CDs and a good range of DVDs. Small satellite libraries were provided in the residential halls and a few books and DVDs were available for prisoners in the SRU.

The library book stock consisted mainly of fiction books. There was a limited range of non‑fiction titles and very few foreign language texts, large print books, audiobooks or reading material for prisoners with additional support needs. Overall, the stock did not reflect the cultural and religious diversity of the prisoners, or wider society. There was no active promotion of literacy or library services in the residential halls.

Until recently, the library was run in partnership with North Lanarkshire Libraries, which provided a librarian to manage the facility and also allowed prisoners to request books from the wider catalogue of the Library Services. However, at the time of the inspection a qualified librarian was no longer employed, as the contract for delivery of library services had been terminated following a change of provider to Fife College. In the absence of a librarian and any specialist library software, a basic service was being delivered by passmen who were using a simple spread sheet based issuing system.

Management must prioritise the reinstatement of a full library service, including promotion of library services to prisoners. It should also improve the range and availability of the library book stock to reflect better the diversity of the prison population.

7.23 Prisoners are afforded access to participate in sporting or fitness activities relevant to a wide range of interests, needs and abilities.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The Fitness Centre within the prison comprised a large well‑lit games hall, and a modern well‑equipped multi‑purpose gym. The residential halls and SRU provided access to small satellite gyms with a good standard of physical training equipment. All prisoners completed an induction session with a member of staff before accessing physical activity. Almost all prisoners who attended physical education activities, or used the satellite gyms, made good use of the range of exercise and training equipment available.

All prisoners were offered the opportunity to participate in a good variety of sporting and fitness activities, based on a bi‑weekly timetable which provided prisoners with the opportunity to vary the time they engaged in physical activity. The Fitness Centre offered six daily gym sessions each weekday and access to a further four sessions spread over the weekend. Timetabled activities included badminton, football, circuit training, weightlifting, tennis and carpet bowls along with fitness activities appropriate for those over the age of 40 years. Enhanced sessions were offered for prisoners in Boxercise, Metafit and Kettlebells, which were well attended.

Overall, attendance at the timetabled sessions was good across the prison. Most prisoners participated in sporting activities based around strength exercises and the use of free weights. These sessions were attended well, predominantly by younger mainstream prisoners. However, participation in Fitness Centre activities by protection prisoners and other age groups was much lower.

The Fitness Centre advertised courses to promote a healthy lifestyle, however, there were no SQA accredited awards attached to the physical activities, and in the past year the physical education department had not delivered any accredited awards.

Physical education staff did not actively promote the opportunities for and benefits of physical activities and health improvement throughout the prison populations, and few health promotion events had been arranged in the past year.

7.24 Prisoners are afforded access to participate in recreational, self-help or peer-support activities relevant to a wide range of interests and abilities.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Instructors in the vocational workshops encouraged prisoners to develop a range of personal and social skills, in addition to gaining technical knowledge. Prisoners valued the support provided to help them to develop their literacy and numeracy skills within a working environment. However, there were no arrangements in place with the Learning Centre to give prisoners recognition and accreditation for the personal, social and core skills gained during their vocational activities.

Approximately eight prisoners had been trained as Listeners to support other prisoners who found difficulty coping with life in prison. In the absence of a formal Peer Tutor scheme, many of the Listeners were supporting prisoners as ad hoc Peer Mentors during vocational and educational activities, and encouraging prisoners to become involved in purposeful activity.

Within the Fitness Centre, prisoners were able to access a range of recreational activities including, football, carpet bowls, and racquet sports. However, prisoners did not have the opportunity to engage in self‑help initiatives focused upon health improvement or literacy and numeracy skills.

7.25 Prisoners have access to a variety of cultural activities and events and are encouraged to participate in them.

Rating: Good performance

Most prisoners had access to a good range of cultural activities and events, and many prisoners engaged well in these activities. In the Learning Centre nine art classes and two music classes were scheduled each week, along with a few language and citizenship classes. Almost all prisoners participated enthusiastically in these sessions, which provided a positive contribution to prison life. In 2016 the prison submitted 117 entries to the Annual Koestler Awards, of which 51 received awards, including one platinum and eight gold awards. This was the highest number of awards given to any one prison in the UK that year, and is a credit to the prisoners and the staff that supported them. Prisoner artists also worked with Glasgow School of Art to produce a video, contributed artwork to the Third Hand exhibition at the Centre for Contemporary Arts in Glasgow, and attended a workshop facilitated by the Talbot Rice Gallery.

A reading club, originally organised by the librarian and supported by Glasgow University, continued to be well‑attended by prisoners, sustained by Learning Centre staff in the absence of a librarian. Prisoners engaged well in discussions on a range of topics and some prisoners were active participants in regular visiting author events organised throughout the year.

Prisoners participated in a range of well‑attended activities organised in The Tab by the prison Chaplaincy Service, which included a number of different faith options led by local faith leaders. These activities included the Sycamore Tree course on restorative justice, presentations by outside speakers, and various courses on Christianity along with family services. A few prisoners presented dramatised readings of Easter stories, which were videoed and made available to all prisoners on the Prisoner Information Channel Shotts (PICS).

A regular group of prisoners engaged enthusiastically in the Creative Media Group, supported well by Learning Centre staff. This Group maintained production of the high quality STIR magazine, which showcased artwork and creative writing by prisoners from many of Scotland’s prisons. The prisoners had developed their technical skills in using design software as well as their personal skills through membership of the magazine’s Editorial Board. The Creative Media Group also published Snapshotts, which is a HMP Shotts magazine highlighting writing by prisoners on a range of topical subjects. The group generated its own income through successful bidding for design and print commissions from, for example, SPS, the IPM Service and the Koestler Trust. This income was invested in high specification Apple Macs, industry software and a new industry‑standard printer. Involvement in these activities had enabled the prisoners to acquire a good level of business skills. The Creative Media Group members have extended their skills further with the launch of the PICS. Prisoners were invited to film and edit videos on various activities across the prison, including psychology services and these were available to all prisoners on a dedicated TV channel broadcast to their cell. A Learning Centre staff member recently won an Outstanding Teacher Award in recognition of their work with the STIR magazine group.

Standard 8 - Transitions from custody to life in the community

Prisoners are prepared for their successful return to the community.

Commentary

The prison is active in supporting prisoners for returning successfully to their community at the conclusion of their sentence. The prison works with agencies in the community to ensure that resettlement plans are prepared, including specific plans for employment, training, education, healthcare, housing and financial management.

Overview

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

HMP Shotts is unique in that it is the only establishment in Scotland that holds no short-term prisoners, therefore the context of the work undertaken needs to be understood.

The prison accommodates male adults who were sentenced to or recalled from sentences of four years or more, including life sentences. The majority of prisoners are not liberated from HMP Shotts, but progress to other prisons in order to prepare further for release. Therefore HMP Shotts does not have the same role as other establishments in terms of preparing prisoners for their successful return to the community. Despite this the prison liberates approximately 60 prisoners each year, with all except one of those released since the start of 2017 being released on non-parole licence, and not subject to statutory supervision arrangements by community‑based Social Work services.

In addition to this, the prison approved almost 90 prisoners for progression to NTE establishments and open prison between January 2016 and January 2017. Therefore it has a responsibility for preparing individuals appropriately for these transitions.

The prison had a well-established and efficiently administered ICM process, which was well attended by prison‑based and community agencies. The introduction of an ICM test of change process, whilst at an early stage, suggested a greater degree of flexibility and responsivity to specific needs could be achieved. Additional quality assurance of the content of Community Integration Plans (CIP) prepared for ICMs could enhance the process and improve the quality of release plans. Robust arrangements were in place for the release of prisoners subject to statutory supervision, as a result of close liaison with community‑based Social Work services. Improvements were required in the preparation of prisoners for release and for transition to other establishments. This was most evident in arrangements for a small number of prisoners released at their sentence expiry date. The provision of a more formal programme to develop prisoners’ life skills, knowledge of electronic systems and formats for managing finances, making housing applications and undertaking job searches would potentially enhance prisoner outcomes. This could be enhanced further through making better use of the Link Centre provision and the introduction of a more formal approach to providing direct support to prisoners before and after their transition to open conditions.

In the main, programme work which was available within the prison was prioritised and completed by prisoners whilst in custody, and targets were being met. Whilst there was a backlog for access to the self-change programme, an action plan was in place in an attempt to improve this.

Quality Indicators

8.1 The prison encourages government agencies, private and third sector organisations who offer services relevant to the community integration needs of each prisoner to jointly agree an appropriate plan.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The primary process for prisoners at HMP Shotts was to progress to other establishments to prepare for release. The main functions carried out by the prison to facilitate this were RMT meetings and the ICM process. The RMT is a multi‑disciplinary forum, tasked with the sentence management of prisoners across the estate. This had included the involvement of statutory agencies and private and third sector community organisations as required, dependent on the circumstances of each individual case. The prison had a well‑established process for undertaking ICM meetings and had two dedicated officers tasked with co‑ordinating the process. Prison‑based agencies including criminal justice Social Work, health and psychology services had maintained regular attendance at ICMs, and collaborated well with community‑based services to prepare future release plans and jointly agree a CIP. Annual ICMs took place for all prisoners and were administered efficiently by the prison.

Long‑term prisoners did not always find the process of ICM beneficial, particularly if they were at the start of a long sentence. In response to this the prison had taken part in an ICM test of change process, where reviews took place on a needs‑led basis rather than an annual scheduled basis. This was underpinned by a new Interventions Assessment, which replaced the Generic Programmes Assessment, with the intention of widening the assessment beyond the requirement for programmes. Whilst the new ICM process was at an early stage, feedback from prison managers, Personal Officers and prison‑based Social Work had highlighted a number of positives. In particular, that the move from undertaking a scheduled annual ICM for all prisoners had the potential to free up more time and resources to focus on individuals with higher risk and needs, in order that they could be reviewed more regularly if required.

The role of the Personal Officer in the ICM process had been enhanced by the introduction of a guidance document “Passport to Good Case Management” introduced in December 2016. This had yet to result in consistency in the quality of CIPs prepared by Personal Officers for ICMs. Whist many of them were satisfactory, some required improvement.

The prison had a dedicated Link Centre Officer who maintained good links with community agencies including Job Centre Plus. There were no community agencies based within the Link Centre, however the Link Centre Officer made appropriate arrangements for community agencies to undertake visits to provide information and assistance as required.

8.2 Where there is a statutory duty on any agency to supervise a prisoner after release, all reasonable steps are taken to ensure this happens.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison‑based Social Work Team were effectively fulfilling their responsibilities to plan for prisoners released on statutory supervision. All prisoners with a release date from HMP Shotts were allocated a prison‑based Social Worker six months prior to that date. The Social Work Team met with individuals to discuss release plans and update an assessment of risks and needs. ICM meetings were being arranged three months prior to release in order to further develop plans and confirm appointments where required. Good communication with responsible local authorities was maintained and, where appropriate, notifications were being sent to them to advise of the release of prisoners with a conviction for Schedule 1 and sex offences.

Social Work staff appropriately completed relevant risk assessments, and shared information with partners on the level of support and monitoring that would be required by prisoners’ post‑release. This was relevant to a small number of prisoners released on statutory supervision by Social Work services. In these cases, information was shared with prison and community‑based colleagues at ICM meetings by attending prison‑based Social Workers.

As indicated, the majority of prisoners were released on non‑parole licence, meaning that they would not be subject to this type of supervision. In these circumstances, prison‑based Social Workers maintained contact with relevant local authorities to arrange an initial appointment with community‑based Social Work in order for licence conditions to be explained to those released. When prisoners were released at their sentence expiry date, prison‑based Social Workers offered them the option of taking up voluntary throughcare with community Social Work Teams. Arrangements and appointments were made in cases where this applied.

The prison Link Centre Officer also made a valuable contribution to assisting prisoners with appointments with housing providers, Job Centre Plus and other relevant agencies prior to release. Prison managers recognised that the Link Centre could play a greater role in preparing and assisting prisoners for release, and had made arrangements to recruit an additional officer with Link Centre duties.

8.3 Where prisoners have been engaged in development or treatment programmes during their sentence, the prison takes appropriate action to enable them to continue or reinforce the programme on their return to the community.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The main programmes offered in the prison were Constructs, Pathways, Controlling Anger, Regulating Emotions (CARE) and the Self‑Change Programme. The establishment was meeting agreed targets for the delivery of these programmes. However a waiting list had developed, particularly for the Self‑Change programme. The prison had recently amended the criteria for access to the programme in order to take account of the date prisoners qualified for progression with a view to prioritising these cases, however a backlog remained. The establishment recognised the frustration that this could result in for some prisoners, and demonstrated a commitment to continue to review access to programmes and delivery issues.

The majority of prisoners were able to undertake and complete required programmes within closed conditions. This reduced the need for men to continue or complete programmes in the community. When this requirement had arisen, programme staff liaised with prison‑based Social Workers in order for arrangements to be made for programme work to continue wherever possible. This was relevant for a small number of prisoners, as in most cases they would need to be on statutory supervision to complete programme work.

In order to support prisoners who had transferred to open conditions, Psychologists from the programme delivery team had made visits to the open estate, in order to consolidate learning for those undertaking the Self‑Change programme. This was intended to support prisoners to embed the learning from this programme, and make the best use of their knowledge and skills during community release.

It was evident that there was no formal programme aimed at preparing prisoners for release, such as life skills, being delivered within the establishment. Whilst it is recognised that release numbers are not high, it would potentially benefit prisoners preparing for release to have this opportunity. It could include standard self‑care modules but also focus on enabling prisoners to become familiar with the electronic systems which underpin application forms for housing, training and education, job searches and financial management. Similarly, the delivery of such a programme could potentially benefit prisoners preparing for transition to NTE and open prison. In particular, the provision of more formal arrangements to support and prepare prisoners for the increased levels of freedom and responsibility that they have at these establishments, may contribute to improved outcomes.

Protection prisoners were not always well‑supported in terms of access to programmes. This was recognised by programme staff and prison managers, and arrangements were being developed in order to improve access for this group. This will remain an area for on‑going attention in order to ensure good access to programmes to meet assessed needs, and to provide equitable access to opportunities for progression.

8.4 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to ensure appointments and interviews are in place with relevant agencies.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prison‑based Social Workers ensured that appointments for supervision were in place for all prisoners subject to statutory release. Social Workers engaged effectively with their community counterparts and attended ICMs in order to finalise plans. The prison-based Social Work Team also maintained a good level of contact with prisoners in the months prior to release, in order to contribute to their preparation and planning for successful reintegration into communities.

Prison managers acknowledged that arrangements for some prisoners not subject to statutory supervision could be improved. Prisoners released on non‑parole licence and at their sentence expiry dates did not always have firm arrangements in place and all outstanding needs met. In recognition of this, the establishment had undertaken an internal review and drafted a proposal for a more formalised pre‑release process. This had yet to be implemented however included elements which could potentially improve outcomes for those released.

8.5 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that accommodation will be available.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The Link Centre Officer ensured that contact was made with housing providers for those prisoners nearing release. Early contact was useful in engaging with prisoners and to gain their agreement to liaise on their behalf with housing providers in order to obtain tenancies wherever possible. The Link Centre Officer also met with prisoners in the weeks prior to release in order to identify any potential changes to the prisoners’ plans and to arrange appointments as necessary. Prisoners of no fixed abode were linked to the appropriate housing provider for the area where they wished to reside on release. The Link Centre Officer aimed to ensure that all prisoners who had engaged with the service had an appointment in place with a housing provider on release.

Whilst the Link Centre Officer made contact with local housing providers and liaised on behalf of prisoners, it remained the case that some prisoners required to present as homeless to housing providers. This situation was unacceptable, especially when the individual had been in custody for a long period. Community based agencies must do more to ensure that housing is available for prisoners upon release.

8.6 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to help them find work or enrol for training or education.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The majority of prisoners were progressed to other establishments in order to prepare further for release. It was anticipated that more specific arrangements were undertaken within these establishments to progress options for employment, training and further education. The prison therefore prioritised the provision of education and the development of skills for work within closed conditions with a view to these being enhanced when prisoners progressed to other establishments. To achieve this, the prison had well‑established work units which provided opportunities for developing skills to a number of prisoners during the course of long‑term sentences. A range of vocational skills and qualifications were available through prison industries in order to support employability prospects.

8.7 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to help them manage their financial affairs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

For the relatively small number of prisoners who have a release date from the prison, there was support and assistance provided to them regarding financial matters. This was mainly provided through contact with the Link Centre Officer who met with prisoners to discuss their circumstances and assist them with completing application forms, and with making initial appointments with relevant agencies. Personal Officers also provided prisoners nearing release with advice and assistance on financial issues, in liaison with the Link Centre.

There was no specific programme being provided to prisoners, or training or education on the management of their finances. Consideration should be given to addressing this shortfall.

8.8 The prison reliably discharges its statutory duties to assist the resettlement of prisoners on release.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The provision of a release address for prisoners nearing liberation continues to be a challenge for the prison, in common with other establishments. This was particularly challenging for prisoners released at their sentence expiry date and without supervision. Whilst the Link Centre Officer made contact with local housing providers and liaised on behalf of prisoners, it remained the case that some prisoners required to present as homeless to housing providers. It is recognised that the prison has limited influence in these circumstances.

The prison‑based Social Work Team were working effectively in maintaining strong links with community colleagues in order to plan housing options for those prisoners due to be released on a statutory licence. ICM meetings were taking place at the required stage in order to develop CIPs. The meetings maintained a focus on accommodation arrangements, particularly as any proposed accommodation had to be approved by community colleagues for men subject to statutory orders. Prison‑based Social Workers also maintained effective working relationships with community‑based Social Work Teams in order to facilitate the transition process, contribute to case management plans and make arrangements for meetings and appointments following release.

The prison‑based Psychology Service made a useful contribution to preparing prisoners for release, through the delivery of programmes aimed to address the underlying thinking and behaviours which may have led to the prisoner being incarcerated.

8.9 Where the prison offers any services to prisoners after their release, those services are well planned and effectively supervised.

Rating: Not applicable

The prison does not offer services to prisoners after their release.

Standard 9 - Equality, dignity and respect

The prison employs fair processes whilst ensuring it meets the distinct needs of all prisoner groups irrespective of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Commentary

The prison ensures that all prisoners experience equality of opportunity and outcomes whilst ensuring that the law that applies to any specific group of prisoners is implemented in ways that recognise and respect particular needs.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Generally acceptable performance

In terms of positive practice, we would highlight two particular activities:

the parenting intervention; and;
the dementia awareness, involving prisoners and their families.

It was noticeable that throughout the prison, the level of understanding of human rights, equality and non‑discrimination amongst staff was reasonable, but management should work towards enhancing this through training and awareness.

The lack of a clear establishment vision based on human rights and human dignity meant that the individualised approach to identifying equality and diversity issues depended heavily on the personal knowledge and quality of individuals’ understanding. This had the potential to lead to differential and less progressive treatment by those who did not benefit from such well-developed understanding.

There was a need for both greater awareness raising and application of the SPS policies in relation to the needs of prisoners with various protected characteristics. The experiences of a number of prisoners indicated that on occasion opportunities to intervene were missed, when, for instance, insensitive comments were made or when a need was missed, such as support for someone with mobility issues. What was evident was that these incidences occurred, in the main, through a lack of awareness rather than deliberate intent, further emphasising the need for on-going awareness sessions and activities.

Prisoners were clear that the great majority of staff treated them with dignity and respect. This was supported by evidence gathered from both interviews and observations, where there appeared to be a positive atmosphere between staff and prisoners.

There were strategic and operational plans for equality and diversity which demonstrated it was taken seriously by prison management and meetings were held regularly. However there was too much focus on process and the action plan did not reflect the needs and priorities of HMP Shotts. Furthermore, equality and diversity did not seem to be thoroughly mainstreamed throughout the residential units and as a consequence, both prisoners and staff were unfamiliar with this mechanism. We would encourage management to establish how prisoner participation could be improved.

The provision of information about entitlements and day‑to‑day processes is fundamental to enabling prisoners to access their rights. Whilst the staff in charge of providing prisoners’ induction were tremendously enthusiastic, the induction process was inadequate. The current structure was informal, unpredictable and there was no individualised information pack for prisoners. Also, there was no data available in terms of the number of prisoners who had received induction. There was no formal structure for conveying information to those with learning difficulties or to foreign nationals whose first language was not English. As a consequence, some of the prisoners interviewed seemed to be particularly isolated. Some of the prisoners interviewed were not aware of basic information, such as the processes for raising an equality and diversity issue or the system in place, if any, to access their country’s embassy or consulate.

Quality Indicators

9.1 The prison’s Equality and Diversity Strategy meets the legal requirements of all groups of prisoners including those with protected characteristics.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Equality and diversity appeared to be taken seriously at a management level. There was leadership by the Governor supported by a functional head, and lead responsibility for co‑ordinating work on equalities and human rights issues was assigned to a Unit Manager. Quarterly equality and diversity meetings were chaired by the Governor. We recommend prisoner participation be encouraged through community forums as one of the key priorities in the action plan. Prisoner representatives should be clearly identified and available to prisoners in each unit.

In general, equality and diversity did not seem to be thoroughly mainstreamed throughout the residential units.

Prisoners who faced the most marginalisation would benefit from a forum to discuss their particular issues, and to provide them with a space to raise issues which they may not feel able to raise in the wider forum. For example, specific forums focussing on LGBTI or BME prisoners could be held from time to time.

We noted that there had not been any equality and diversity complaints in the last quarter, and it was acknowledged that there was a lack of awareness of this process among prisoners. This was supported by our interviews with prisoners. We recommend that steps are taken to raise awareness of equality and diversity issues which might arise and the appropriate steps staff should take in those circumstances, including the complaints process.

Data on protected characteristics was collected during the reception process, but it does not seem to be updated regularly. We found some discrepancies in terms of religion and sexual orientation. Gaps in the data on sexual orientation were identified during the inspection and action was being taken to update this information. This could lead to support needs being missed and we recommend that this is reviewed to ensure its accuracy. Understanding and support for protected characteristics is encouraged by a wide range of events, including, the Chaplaincy and the Links Centre.

9.2 Staff understand and play an active role in implementing the prison’s Equality and Diversity Strategy.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Continuous and up to date training plays an essential role, ensuring staff understand and comply with human rights and equality standards, and encourages the development of skills necessary to transform knowledge and information into practical behaviour, which reinforces respect for, and faith in, human dignity and fundamental human rights.

The provision of information about entitlements and processes is fundamental to enabling prisoners to access their rights. The primary means for conveying this information was the induction process. Whilst the staff in charge of providing prisoners’ induction were tremendously enthusiastic, the induction process was inadequate. The structure was informal, unpredictable and there was no individualised information pack for prisoners. There was no data available in terms of the number of prisoners who had received induction. There was no formal structure for conveying information to those with learning difficulties or to foreign nationals who are not proficient in English. In order for the gaps identified to be filled and for more proactive management of equality and diversity issues to be taken, we consider that increased resource should be devoted to this role.

9.3 Prisoners of all ages are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Most of the needs of prisoners in older age groups were explicitly considered and accommodated. The Dementia Awareness Programme, involving prisoners and their families was an example of good practice. Whilst there was not a significant older population in HMP Shotts, the older population was increasing. This Dementia Awareness Programme was welcomed by both prisoners and staff and reports from that section were entirely positive. Staff were described as helpful and friendly, and prisoners commented on the marked difference the programme had had on their experience of prison life. There was also evidence of trained peer supporter schemes and gym activities.

However, there was evidence that the needs of prisoners with physical disabilities and older prisoners with physical disabilities ware not fully met. In particular accessing and engaging in work (or volunteering) and recreation had proved difficult. If prisoners were unfit to work, this often linked directly to less time out of their cell. Long‑term imprisonment can have a number of dissocialising effects upon prisoners. So, allowing all prisoners to work and to access purposeful activities can contribute to their recognition of their human dignity, and the principle of normalisation in prison life. Management should take positive steps to ensure these categories of prisoners are not discriminated against on the basis of their age and/or disability.

9.4 Prisoners with disabilities are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

HMP Shotts had a number of accessible cells which are of a high design standard. Health care was provided in line with prisoners’ assessed needs and prisoners are provided with mobility aids as required. Disabled prisoners were also able to readily access the rest of the prison due to its modern design. However, prisoners who said that they had a disability reported less access to activities and association than those who did not, and were less likely to say that they had been involved in work or purposeful activity.

9.5 Prisoners who have undergone or are in the process of transforming from one gender to another are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

A transgender prisoner reported that whilst they were generally satisfied with their regime, there was a lack of full implementation of SPS policy by the prison management. For example they highlighted the inability to access adequate female appropriate cosmetics and clothing. However, the management in HMP Shotts advised that transgender prisoners have access to female cosmetics and clothing via a list, in line with other female establishments. All transgender prisoners should be allowed to express the gender with which they identify.

It is important to note that SPS Equality and Diversity Policy is one of the most comprehensive documents of its type. Unfortunately, the experiences of this transgender prisoner relied heavily on the personal knowledge of individual staff and the quality of individual relationships rather than on the institutional approach to equality and diversity. We consider that there is a need for both greater awareness‑raising and application of the SPS policies in relation to the needs of this type of prisoner.

9.6 Prisoners who are married or who have entered into civil partnership unions are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison has not performed ceremonies in the last quarter.

9.7 Women prisoners are treated with dignity, and their individual needs are met including those associated with pregnancy and maternity.

Rating: Not applicable

9.8 Prisoners of all racial groups and nationalities are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prisoners reported being treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their racial group or nationality. There were no reports of racial tension or incidents among those we interviewed, including a number of foreign nationals.

HMP Shotts had a small population of foreign nationals at the time of the inspection. Foreign nationals faced more difficulty in navigating the system and were more isolated than the general population. As has been noted in other prisons, foreign nationals can become a marginalised group whose isolation can be exacerbated by language barriers. We were concerned with the lack of information and communication provided to foreign nationals, including the right to contact their diplomatic missions in this country. This was reflected particularly in the induction process.

9.9 Prisoners of all religious groups are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The Chaplaincy was widely commended for the support it provides to all prisoners. Most prisoners could exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief without any issue, however, there were no particular arrangements made for those of less common faiths. It was also noted that the library did not have an adequate selection of religious and foreign language materials to support this right.

The review of a ‘concluded’ complaint documentation related to this protected characteristic found that the response provided to the complainer lacked the adequate standard of accessibility, explanation and accountability required under human rights principles. The documentation inspected was incomplete, so it was difficult to follow‑up through the complaint process. Management should review how they respond to such complaints to ensure that they are adequately and appropriately addressed.

9.10 Prisoners of all genders are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Not applicable

Other than the situation with transgender prisoners dealt with separately, only male prisoners were detained in HMP Shotts.

9.11 Prisoners of any sexual orientation are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Information on sexual orientation was incomplete and efforts were being made to gather more accurate information.

Standard 10 - Organisational effectiveness

The prison’s priorities are consistent with the achievement of these standards and are clearly communicated to all staff. There is a shared commitment by all people working in the prison to co‑operate constructively to deliver these priorities.

Staff understand how their work contributes directly to the achievement of the prison’s priorities. The prison management team shows leadership in deploying its resources effectively to achieve improved performance. It ensures that staff have the skills necessary to perform their roles well. All staff work well with others in the prison and with agencies which provide services to prisoners. The prison works collaboratively and professionally with other prisons, and other criminal justice organisations.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts occupies a unique position in the criminal justice system in Scotland, being the only prison exclusively for long‑term prisoners. This status has led to the development of a clear identity which recognises the particular challenges of delivering a regime for long‑term prisoners. Shortly before the inspection, there had been a significant change in the team of senior managers, including the Governor and her Deputy. It was apparent that there was a strongly shared sense of identity and purpose, with staff taking pride in delivering positive outcomes for prisoners.

The plans for 2017‑18 clearly identified the priorities for the prison, including developing a strategy to reduce the levels of interpersonal violence and reviewing the effectiveness of the visiting arrangements at HMP Shotts. Throughout the prison, inspectors found effective personal leadership and a commitment to improving the prison. There was a surprising lack of management information available to enable senior managers to take informed decisions at both an operational and a strategic level.

There was a good level of co‑operation between different functional groups and a shared understanding of the diverse roles within the prison. NHS staff worked well with prison staff and there were good links with wider NHS Lanarkshire services. The provision of Social Work services was effective, although attendance by community‑based social workers at ICMs could have been greater. There appeared to be a lack of throughcare support for prisoners liberated at the end of their sentence without parole licence conditions. The number of people in this category was not small, with over 50 such prisoners liberated last year.

In relation to educational services, the contract provider had changed shortly before the inspection from New College Lanarkshire to Fife College. It was too early to make any assessment of the impact of this change, although, perhaps understandably, there was considerable uncertainty amongst the Learning Centre staff.

Quality Indicators

10.1 The prison successfully implements plans to improve performance against these standards. The management team gives clear leadership by communicating the prison’s priorities and what is expected of all staff.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts had a clear Business Improvement Plan for 2017‑18. This identified the key priorities for the prison. The management team had further highlighted particular actions for priority, such as developing a strategy to reduce the levels of interpersonal violence and fear‑inducing behaviour, and reviewing the effectiveness of the visiting arrangements at HMP Shotts.

There had recently been a significant change in the composition of the senior management team. This had provided an opportunity to review some processes and priorities at HMP Shotts.

10.2 The management team makes regular and effective use of information in improving the prison’s performance against these standards.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Throughout the inspection, inspectors were surprised that there were gaps in the availability of performance data on so many different aspects of the prisons’ functions. There was no daily or weekly dashboard of management information provided for the management team. Data which was provided on complaints was incomplete and inaccurate. Similarly, there was no accurate record of attendance at work sheds and other activities. The Learning Centre were unable to produce comprehensive records of learner achievements and activities. Regular and accurate management information is essential for improving the performance in the prison.

There was, however, good evidence of regular audits to provide assurance on key processes and activities.

10.3 Staff are clear about the contribution they are expected to make to the priorities of the prison and each is trained to fulfil the requirements of their role. Succession and development training plans are in place.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were comprehensive training plans in place for all staff at HMP Shotts, with a high level of completion of mandatory training. Good records were kept to monitor compliance with training requirements. Staff spoke with confidence about their roles and responsibilities. For some posts, such as FCOs, greater clarity was required to ensure that the posts were adequately filled at all the relevant times.

In the Health Centre, staff shortages had an impact on the level of services that were able to be delivered.

10.4 Good performance at work is recognised by the prison in ways that are valued by staff. Effective steps are taken to remedy inappropriate behaviour or poor performance.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All staff were subject to annual performance appraisals, which had a high completion level. These included in‑year objectives for most, but not all, staff. Good performance was identified through the appraisal process. A staff recognition panel was chaired by the HR Business Partner and received nominations from across the prison. These resulted in various levels of recognition and award, from local acknowledgement to nominations for SPS, Scottish Government or national awards such as the Butler Trust. Plans were in place to seek to increase the number of nominations.

Arrangements were in place to proactively manage underperforming members of staff. Poor performance was managed through the Charter for Help process.

10.5 Staff at all levels understand the value of work undertaken by others.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Throughout HMP Shotts there was a good understanding of the purpose and direction of the prison. There was a sense of shared endeavour and a workforce committed to delivering the best possible outcomes. During informal consultation and negotiations there had been several issues of contention between different levels within the prison, but these had been pursued through the relevant channels and processes.

10.6 Each functional staff group understands and respects the work undertaken by each of the other functions.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Throughout the inspection process, inspectors noted positive working relationships between different functional groups in the prison. This extended beyond the different prison staff functions to include healthcare staff and education staff. There was evidence of positive joint working between the Mental Health Team in the prison and the Psychiatrist, and more generally between the Health Centre staff and NHS Lanarkshire.

10.7 The prison is effective in fostering supportive working relationships with other parts of the prison system.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As Scotland’s only prison solely for long‑term prisoners, HMP Shotts occupies a unique position in the criminal justice system. Staff engaged well with other prisons in Scotland, negotiating prisoner transfers when necessary. In particular, effective dialogue was maintained with those prisons which have a NTE and with HMP Open Estate.

As part of its local violence strategy, HMP Shotts was developing a “violence reduction partnership”, to work with other prisons to support each other in managing individual prisoners by creating specific action plans. These shared plans would be designed to be of benefit to the individual prisoners and to the prison establishments.

10.8 The prison works effectively in partnership with agencies which share responsibility for managing and supporting prisoners.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

In contrast to prisons catering for short‑term prisoners, HMP Shotts works with relatively fewer partner organisations in delivering services to prisoners. Where partners were engaged, there were positive working relationships. Alzheimer Scotland had provided dementia advisors to assist in the support of older prisoners with this condition. They had also trained staff in order to ensure that HMP Shotts could be described as a “dementia friendly prison”.

There were also positive working relationships with Social Workers, although attendance of community‑based Social Workers at ICMs could have been higher. There was a constructive relationship evident between the prison staff and NHS staff at both an operational and a strategic level. The prison also worked well with Police Scotland and G4S on security and intelligence matters.

10.9 The prison works effectively in partnership with organisations that provide services either during their sentence or on release.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Support was provided to organisations which provided services to prisoners in HMP Shotts, although the staffing within the Links Centre was inconsistent. Plans were in place to address the staffing shortfall. It was disappointing to note the absence of TSOs. Prisoners who were released directly from HMP Shotts did not benefit from the support offered to prisoners leaving other establishments. This had a negative impact on their chances of successful reintegration back into their community. In 2016, there were over 50 such liberations, leaving HMP Shotts without any additional support. It may be that after serving a long sentence, such support to navigate the basic requirements of life, such as housing, benefits and healthcare, is even more necessary than for those serving a short sentence.

10.10 The prison is effective in communicating its work to the public and in maintaining constructive relationships with local and national media.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Shotts had engaged positively with local community groups and had benefited from such constructive relationships. Positive initiatives had been reported in the local press. The prison publicises items of interest for local communities.

HMP Shotts has featured in a Channel 4 documentary designed to inform the public about life in prisons in Scotland.

Annex A: Prison population profile on 21 August 2017

Status	Number of prisoners
Untried Male Adults
Untried Female Adults
Untried Male Young Offenders
Untried Female Young Offenders
Sentenced Male Adults	531
Sentenced Female Adults
Sentenced Male Young Offenders
Sentence Female Young Offenders
Recalled Life Prisoners	18
Convicted Prisoners Awaiting Sentencing
Prisoners Awaiting Deportation
Under 16s
Civil Prisoners
Home Detention Curfew (HDC)
Sentence	Number of prisoners
At Court
Untried/ Remand
0 – 1 month
1 – 2 months
2 – 3 months
3 – 4 months
4 – 5 months
5 – 6 months
6 months to less than 12 months	1
12 months to less than 2 years	6
2 years to less than 4 years	13
4 years to less than 10 years	183
10 years and over (not life)	51
Life	243
Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR)	17
Recalled Life Prisoners	18
Age	Number of prisoners
Minimum age:	21
Under 21 years
21 years to 29 years	124
30 years to 39 years	188
40 years to 49 years	132
50 years to 59 years	72
60 years to 69 years	14
70 years plus	1
Maximum age:	70
Total number of prisoners	531

Data provided by SPS

Annex B: Inspection Team

David Strang, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, HMIPS

Jim Farish, Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons, HMIPS

Malcolm Smith, Inspector of Prisons, HMIPS

Alan Forman, HMIPS

Stephen Fields, Scottish Prison Service

Pamela Swan, HMP Kilmarnock

Ian Beach, Education Scotland

Peter Midgley, Education Scotland

Ray Jones, Care Inspectorate

Cath Haley, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Kenneth Crosbie, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Leon Wylie, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Tafadzwa (Taffy) Madziva, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Diego Quiroz, Scottish Human Rights Commission

Annex C: Acronyms

BBV Blood Borne Virus

BICS British Institute of Cleaning Science

BIM Business Improvement Manager

BME Black Minority Ethnic

CARE Controlling Anger, Regulating Emotions

CIP Community Integration Plan

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

FCO Family Contact Officer

HDC Home Detention Curfew

ICM Integrated Case Management

IPM Independent Prison Monitor

LGBTI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex

MDMHT Multi-disciplinary Mental Health Team

NIC National Integration Centre

NPS Novel Psychoactive Substances

NTE National Top End

OLR Order for Lifelong Restriction

OU Open University

PIAC Prisoner Information and Action Committee

PICS Prisoner Information Channel Shotts

PPC Prisoner Personal Cash

PR2 The SPS electronic prisoner records system – version 2

PRA Psychological Risk Assessment

QI Quality Indicators

RMT Risk Management Team

SCQF Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPS Scottish Prison Service

SRU Separation and Reintegration Unit

TSO Throughcare Support Officer

VISION Prisoner’s electronic health record

SCT11173991961.pdf

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Report on HMP Shotts 21 August - 1 September 2017

Report On HMP Shotts: Full Inspection 21 August - 1 September 2017

Contents

Introduction and Background

Key Facts

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

Summary of Inspection Findings

Annex A: Prison population profile on 21 August 2017

Annex B: Inspection Team

Annex C: Acronyms