Official Report 777KB pdf
Our next item of business is pre-budget scrutiny, which we commence today, focusing on prisons. We have one panel of witnesses. I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for the evidence session, and I refer members to papers 3 and 4. From the Scottish Prison Service, we are joined by the chief executive, Ms Teresa Medhurst; the deputy chief executive, Linda Pollock; and the director of finance, Amy McDonald. You are all very welcome, and thank you for your written submission.
Teresa Medhurst, have you found the funding for 2025-26 to be sufficient, and what are your organisation’s main asks for 2026-27? If you are unsuccessful in your bid, what will the consequences be?
11:00
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to attend this evidence session on pre-budget scrutiny.
There were three elements to your question. First, on the challenges for this financial year, we had an increase in our budget between 2024-25 and 2025-26—an uplift of £45 million, which is 8.6 per cent. However, early in the financial year, other inflationary pressures in relation to utilities and the pay settlement meant that the increase was going to be insufficient, so we applied for additional funding and received an additional £22.5 million on top of the £45 million. In that sense, I would say that, over the course of the year, as things stand, we are managing within the revenue and capital budget.
My concerns relate to the degradation potential in the estate. Given the population pressures that we are experiencing, we cannot decant and carry out maintenance or other work that we want to do to improve facilities. Given the wear and tear on our buildings, that has the potential to store problems for the future. When people are incredibly busy just keeping people safe and focusing on being legislatively compliant, the ability to spend in the way that we normally would is significantly reduced.
So, we are managing, and this year’s budgetary pressures have not been acute because of the additional funding that we received. We also made in-year bids for additional funding in relation to population pressures and our response to the fatal accident inquiry recommendations and action points that came out of the FAIs into the deaths of William Lindsay—also known as William Brown—and Katie Allan. All that has been shared with the Government, and we are monitoring our spend against it as the year goes on.
On the funding profile for 2026-27, we will be seeking additional funds, mainly for pay and staffing. There will be changes in the contract for escorts, which commence in January, and HM Prison Highland will be completed in late autumn next year. However, we have also been working on what we call a prisoner pathway project, because we have seen an increase in the number of long-term prisoners coming into custody—around 600 in the past two years—as well as increased complexity. We have diverted resources into shoring up some of that work, but there is likely to be a requirement for more because, even in the past six months, we have yet again seen a shift in complexity.
Therefore, we have highlighted to the Scottish Government that we will require investment for a number of areas, including next year’s pay offer, which is part of the two-year deal. Overall, because of the increased complexity of the population and the requirement for more focus on the pathway work with individuals in custody on rehabilitation and returning to the community, we will require more investment, not just next year but in future years. However, as yet, those are uncosted pressures.
If we are unsuccessful in our bid for funding, I will not have enough money to run the organisation next year. At some point, the funding will run out. I cannot see any area that we can cut back, particularly given the population pressures. We are doing everything that we can to maximise the amount of space, to provide support and to make changes in the operating day to ensure that we have staff on shift at the times that we require, in order to maximise the time that people spend out of their cell and to give them access to services and rehabilitation programmes. However, at the moment I can see nowhere that I can effect change or reform in a way that would ensure that we had sufficient funding for next year if we are unsuccessful.
Thank you. My follow-up question is on the impact of the prison population, which you mentioned. The information that I have is that, on 5 November, the population was at its highest-ever level of 8,431. It would be interesting to hear a bit more detail on the impact of the prison population from a budgetary perspective. Can you provide a wee bit more detail on what increase in funding you would look for to allow you to continue caring for prisoners safely and humanely, considering the wellbeing of staff?
Unfortunately, on 11 November, the population hit another high, which was 8,441. That happened on the same day as we started the emergency early release programme, so the spike was short lived. Nevertheless, it was concerning.
We see an increase year on year in social care costs, and that requires additional funding. Our ability to manage the population pressures across the estate means that we require our escort provider to put on additional escorts to move people around just to smooth out the areas where there are peaks and troughs. In addition, we have staffing complements for each establishment, which are agreed with our local unions, so we have safe operating staffing costs. We have to increase those complements when the population rises.
There are also other times when establishments might require additional staffing—for example, if there are incidents. I know that the committee has heard previously about drugs in prisons. Where we have a number of people who are under the influence, you can have 10, 12 or 15 people who require 15-minute observations, so we require additional staff to keep people safe.
There is variability in the staff costs. However, I am concerned that we are shoring up maintenance problems in the buildings. Although we have the staffing costs tied down, that is much more difficult.
Linda Pollock will be able to provide more detail on the prisoner pathway.
We have been working with an increase not only in long-term prisoners but in those who have been given an order for lifelong restriction. We are seeing more impact with regard to the support for rehabilitation courses for people who are moving through the system. We have been directing resource to work through some of the backlog that was built up during Covid, to support people with their programmes of courses to address offending behaviour and to support work on progression, which refers to how people can move through the estate so that we get maximum use from the open estate and can prepare them for return to the community.
We have been directing the work on that. As Teresa Medhurst said, we have been developing a pathway programme that will be individualised and risk-based so that we can respond to and support people individually. However, as you would expect, that requires a lot of resource and work. I also highlight the fact that, although the population level means an increase in requests for our staff, it also has a knock-on effect for our partners in the national health service and social work services, who have to respond to those increases in demand as well.
Thank you—that is an interesting update, in particular with regard to orders for lifelong restriction. I know that it relates to the budget, but I think that, separately, we would be interested to hear a wee bit more about the pathway project by way of follow-up.
That has been helpful to understand the situation. I will open up to questions from members.
Good morning. I want to ask about the resource budget and will follow on from the convener’s questions. Your submission says that you are
“operating at 107% of total design capacity”.
As you said, that might even have been superseded. Last year, you needed in-year resource funding of £22.5 million to address the utilities, the pay policy and the other things that you mentioned. As precisely as you can, can you tell us what extra funding—the minimum figure—you need in the resource budget to run safely next year?
We have done some high-level costing for the organisation and, as things stand, we think that we would require an additional £40 million. However, I caveat that by saying that we required additional in-year funding this year, and I would not discount the fact that we might require it again next year, depending on how the population shifts and changes, because that is currently the greatest driver in all our work.
Let us take £40 million as the base figure that we will be looking at when the budget comes out. What is the implication if that is only a flat-cash, or even a below-inflation, resource increase? What happens then? Would it pause the body-worn camera roll-out, for example?
There is potential for us to stop doing some of that work. However, that absolutely would not, in any way, shape or form, meet the budget pressure, because those are all small costs in comparison with a figure of that size.
I know that the committee has heard evidence from other parts of the justice sector on staffing costs and so on. We are in a position where our prisons are full. I cannot reduce staff and stop doing things because our prisons are full—I need the staff on the ground, doing what they are doing. We therefore have to run as we currently run, and such a settlement would mean that we would run out of money in-year. That would be the reality, because there is no other alternative within the year.
We could slow down or stop recruitment, for example, but it would mean that our prisons were not staffed to the levels that they should be staffed to be safe. I cannot be in a position in which I am not staffing prisons to a safe level. None of those options—which, although they may be unpalatable, may be options for other partners—is available to us. We will, therefore, have to continue operating as we are. We will look at pockets of money that we might be able to save, but that will absolutely not enable us to meet the challenge.
I understand.
On the capital side, HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland has identified HMP Greenock, HMP Dumfries and HMP Perth as having “extremely old infrastructure”. Meanwhile, the replacement prisons—HMP Glasgow and HMP Highland—are delayed and over budget.
Can you update the committee on the current position on HMP Glasgow and HMP Highland? How much extra are you spending to maintain the older prisons at an appropriate level? What does the capital figure need to be to allow you and the staff to do the difficult job that we ask you to do?
On where we are on HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow, the Glasgow business case was signed off and that contract commenced earlier this year. The project as it stands is on time and on budget in the first year of the operation of that contract, so we are still on target for 2028 with Glasgow.
11:15With regard to HMP Highland, the contractor advised us a couple of months ago that there has been a slight delay in relation to precast concrete issues, but that will not delay the completion of the project next year—it is still due for completion then.
The funding that we have requested from the Scottish Government for next year covers both the second year of the project costs for HMP Glasgow and the final funding that is required for the completion of HMP Highland, with additional costs for us around—as you said—the investment that is required in those older prisons. We have five-year development plans for both HMP Greenock and HMP Dumfries—I would need to check on the position for HMP Perth—with costs attached to those.
The funding figure includes that work; the replacement for degradation of items that are used in prisons; costs for maintenance; and our digital infrastructure.
Finally—if you can answer this—what is the figure that needs to be in the budget for you to do all the things that you need to do in the next year?
I am jumping from one lot of figures to another, but the overall capital funding would be £462 million.
Thank you.
Good morning. I have asked this question of everyone who has come before the committee to give evidence for budget scrutiny, so I will ask you the same question. What has been the impact on your organisation as a consequence of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions?
There are two areas in which it has had an impact on us. We received 60 per cent—as other parts of the public sector did—in relation to national insurance contributions. As a result of the additional funding that we have seen come into the organisation—
Before you come to that, I will stop you; perhaps I did not phrase my question properly. What has been the cost—the sum total?
Sorry—it is just over £5 million.
Please feel free to continue on the point that you were making. I wanted the top line first.
Sorry—my apologies.
No—I did not phrase the question very well. Please carry on.
Where was I? We got 60 per cent of the costs met. Because of the way that the organisation has been operating this year and the pressure that we have been under, we have been able to find the remainder of that cost in-year, but we have also had to find the cost in relation to the GEOAmey contract. Because of a failure in service delivery, we changed the contract payment method from the contractual arrangements that were originally in place to what we call pass through, which means that we pay for staffing to ensure that the staffing levels are up. We did not get the costs met for the GEOAmey contract. However, as I said, we are managing the in-year cost pressures so far within our budget.
There is a figure of £5 million. Approximately how many prison officers would that pay for?
I will ask Linda Pollock to work that out as we are sitting here.
If you do not have a figure right now, you can come back to us.
We will come back with it; I do not have it now.
That is absolutely fine.
I will ask another question. In your submission, you say that you need more funding for the private prison operator at HMP Addiewell as a result of contractual requirements. Can you set out, in as much detail as you can, the terms of the contract and what the additional cost will be?
It is above inflation. The question is probably better put to Amy McDonald, because I can never remember whether the measure is the consumer prices index or the retail prices index.
I see that RPIX—the RPI all items index excluding mortgage interest—is the inflationary mechanism that is used. For Addiewell, it is above the inflation rate. It is not an exact figure, because we have to consider the cost annually depending on that inflationary rise. In addition, there are service credits, so it is not the final figure, but the cost is in the region of more than £2 million for next year.
Is that a consequence of the contract that was signed in 2006?
Yes.
Is the operator not obliged to soak up any of that cost? Does the cost fall on the public purse?
With the contract arrangements, there is no way that we can shift the basis of that cost. We could ask the contractor to come to the table to renegotiate, and there have been efforts to do that in the past, but it is not something that a contractor will respond to frequently.
When does that contract run until?
It is a 25-year contract.
Is that to 2031?
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Actually, no. The contract lasts longer than up to 2031, so that does not seem right.
I think that the date is in your submission. Perhaps that can be clarified.
It is 2032.
I was not far off.
You were not far off.
Thank you very much.
Good morning. Ms Medhurst, you have spoken in the past about the complex nature of the prisoner population and, in particular, the fact that it is an ageing population. You alluded to that in your first response. What are the budgetary implications of that?
When you appeared before the committee on 29 October, you spoke about how the scoping work on different models of care for older prisoners was developing. Do you have any more information about that and the budgetary implications in particular?
The social care costs are probably the only ones that we have. Obviously, there are implications for social work and the national health service, but we do not hold those costs, so I cannot provide the fullest information on that. It is a missed opportunity, because there are significant implications for other partners.
Since 2021-22, we have seen an increase of almost £1 million in social care costs, which is very concerning. Although the number of individuals who are supported in custody has increased from 44 to around 57, the issue is more the complexity of the care needs that we now see. Various surveys and pieces of research have highlighted the range of social care needs across the prison population, and the statistics do not reflect the actual level of need on the ground.
Does that £1 million fall to you to fund or to your social care partners?
We fund that cost—it comes from our budget. Regardless of the individual or their care needs, we face challenges because of the way in which care services are provided across Scotland, which means that we sometimes purchase care support from providers in the central belt for prisoners who are in the Highlands or other areas of Scotland. It is quite a complex landscape. The care that is provided is of an excellent standard, but it is more expensive.
Do you need to have specially trained staff to deal with that on a daily basis, outwith the social care support that those prisoners get? Do you need to have people with sufficient first aid skills? I know that all your staff will have a basic level of first aid training, but do you need to have specialist staff to deal with certain conditions?
We train our staff as prison officers: that is what they are hired for, and that is their purpose. Their main purpose is dealing with criminogenic need and risks, rather than others. We will provide additional training and support for those staff who work in particular areas or with particular types of individuals. They will source that for themselves: they are usually pretty good at sourcing additional advice and support.
Our NHS colleagues are incredibly helpful in ensuring that staff are provided with whatever information and/or training is required. However, we do not train our staff to be carers, because that is not their role. Our NHS colleagues go beyond their NHS role to provide such care and support, because prison environments are challenging and different.
We have a lot of people in custody who will meet some social care needs, and who are often friends of the individuals concerned. That gives them a degree more dignity, as they will be dealing with somebody they know. We have provided training to them to ensure that they are properly supported and able to provide social care in what are challenging circumstances.
That is interesting.
That is done through a range of measures and supports, and it is probably more informal than formal.
I am looking at the wider, long-term future and the trajectory of more older people with increasing health needs coming into prison. Do you think that prison is the place for them? Should radical changes be considered in that respect? How might things develop if that trajectory continues?
We need to be clear about the purpose of prison and the format that is required for different population types. I understand that the people who come into custody have committed crimes and that there is a sentence associated with that. The question is what circumstances that sentence should be served in and what purpose it serves to have those people in the highest security facilities when that is not required. That could be addressed by having different types of facilities and/or different types of licence arrangements, such that the sentence would still be served, but perhaps not in the same conditions that apply currently.
Thank you—that was interesting.
Good morning. Ms Medhurst, you have told the committee that you need £40 million in order to keep the Prison Service running, and that does not include what you might need in year. As things stand, what is the shortfall in the projected budget? Is the £40 million what you have asked for?
Yes.
What is the proposal at the moment? Is there a shortfall in what the Government has offered?
We do not have a budget settlement yet. We have only done the preparatory work for the budget discussions—we have set out our high-level estimates of what we will require. However, we have no idea, as yet—
There are no draft figures.
No—not as yet.
I am interested in the capacity of the new HMP Glasgow, which is very important for the Prison Service. From what I understand, there is the design capacity, the target operating capacity and the extended operating capacity. I can see the figures for the current Barlinnie prison, which relate to the fact that you need to use the space, so there is doubling up and so on.
Are you able to tell me, now or later, what those figures will be in relation to the new prison? Its design capacity is 1,344, so there is a bit of extra room. Does that mean that there will also be, as is currently the case, a target operating capacity and an extended operating capacity?
11:30
At the moment, we are operating on the figure of 1,344. I suggest that it would not be wise to identify a figure for overcrowding in the new prison. Opening a new prison is always complex, and it takes a significant amount of detailed planning. That is particularly the case in moving from an establishment that is incredibly old and antiquated and that does not have a lot of digital infrastructure to a new site, where staff will have to work in a different way. They will need to become familiar with all the new operating systems, as well as the structure, because the layout will be markedly different from the layout in Barlinnie. All of that will take a lot of time, planning and preparation.
We are planning to have a phased opening. We have always opened a new prison in that way, to ensure that we know in each phase that the prison is stable and secure and that it is operating and functioning as it should before we move on to the next phase. At the moment, it would not be wise to plan to overcrowd the prison.
We have tried to simplify the figures. We were conscious that a lot of different figures were used across our establishments, but we have now changed those. There is still the design capacity, but we have taken away the target operating capacity; instead, we now have what we call the “assessed capacity tolerance”, which is the very maximum capacity that we can have.
Therefore, each establishment has a design capacity, which is what the population should be sitting at for us to be able to provide the best level of support and care for people. We can then—as we are doing just now—go round all our establishments to consider where we can double up and put people in on top of the design capacity, which is what we now call the assessed capacity tolerance. That is our absolute limit—it is not where we want to be. To be clear, the assessed capacity tolerance, which is talked about a lot as an upper limit, is not a level that we want to be at; it is above the best operating level for our establishments. As Teresa Medhurst said, the design capacity of HMP Glasgow is the level that it will be built to support.
There were so many different numbers and terms being used that it was confusing. Therefore, we have moved to design capacity and assessed capacity tolerance, which is the higher number. That is above and beyond where we should be—it is the level that we can try to safely manage in the space that is available.
Thank you—that is helpful. You are right. There is a table that has three capacity figures—design, target and extended—but you have done away with that system, and you now have the design capacity and the assessed capacity tolerance.
That makes the figures easier to use.
That is helpful.
Finally, I have a question about a different subject—the Scottish court custody and prisoner escort service. I understand that you are retendering for the contract and that GEOAmey does not intend to bid for the new contract. Will you provide an update on that process and whether there are any implications for the budget?
We are still going through the process to award the contract. Because that is being done in confidence, there is not much information that I can provide about it. However, the way that we have run the retendering process has gone well. We have factored costs for the new contract into next year’s budget.
I have a vague recollection that GEOAmey raised concerns about the lack of budgeting during the Covid period, when prisoners were not moving or were moving in different ways. In addition, the justice system has changed to allow more virtual attendance. Have those factors changed the nature of the contract? Is that why GEOAmey was not willing to bid again?
There were definitely factors related to the changing landscape. Although we tried to ensure that GEOAmey was protected in the sense that we were able to provide it with funding during Covid, which meant that it could retain its staffing group, there were elements to do with how GEOAmey operates. Staff attrition rates were fairly high, for example. However, staffing levels and performance have improved significantly and the contract is operating well. I could not comment on why GEOAmey has decided to step away—that is for it to do—but the lessons learned have been factored into the new contract to ensure that we do not end up in the same circumstances.
Good morning. During our inquiry on the harm that substance misuse causes in prisons, we heard detailed evidence on the work that the SPS is doing to address the introduction of illicit substances into the prison estate. In your written submission, you mentioned drone detection technology. Is your current budget sufficient to address those threats? If not, what more is needed?
We have factored into our budget not only funding for technological solutions but funding to continue with the roll-out of grilles on the windows. Our assessment of the impact of that so far has been positive, so it is our intention to continue with it.
In our budget submission, we have factored in a figure for drone technology. However, the issue is that the technological solutions and landscape are shifting so quickly and in so many different ways that it is difficult to see where we will land. We have been engaging with various contractors in various parts of the sector, as well as with colleagues down south, to try to identify solutions that will be more effective than those that we have trialled in the past.
Is what you have in the budget sufficient?
It should be sufficient for the next financial year, because we have still not landed on a final solution, if that makes sense. We do not have a technological solution about which we can say, “This is the one that will do it, and it will last for the remainder of the financial year.” We are still in the scoping phase, but we have factored in costs that we think would equate with a technological solution.
I have a follow-up to Rona Mackay’s question. A report by Wendy Sinclair-Gieben mentioned the need to change the approach to managing a more complex prison population. In your response to Ms Mackay, you mentioned that you needed different types of facilities and different types of licensing. To be clear, people are in prison because they have committed a crime—they are there for a reason. However, there has been a rise in the complexity of the needs of the people who make up the prison population. At what stage are the conversations on the different types of estate that you need? I would liken the provision that is needed to a secure care home, because of the condition of some of your prisoners. Is there enough in your budget to enable you to progress that work? Are those conversations on-going?
I will bring in Linda Pollock on that point.
You will know from previous discussions that, in Scotland, with the Stirling facility and the community custody units, we have the model for women in custody, which is quite advanced. It is a different model, and we are keen to learn from it for other population cohorts.
We are working with Scottish Government colleagues on social care, in particular, and on whether there should be a different model for those prisoners who require it. We are also keen to consider young people. Although there has been an admirable decrease in the number of young people in custody, those young people have complex needs, so we are also working with the Scottish Government on what would be the right type of custody model for that group.
We have spoken previously about the rise in serious organised crime, and we have worked with some of our colleagues across Europe to look at their models. All of that is being factored into conversations with the Scottish Government on what future modelling could look like. From an estates point of view, that must go hand in hand with what the population will be.
We are seeing a continuous increase in population, which is particularly significant in long-term prisoners and those convicted of sexual offences. We are trying to model all of that. We have seen the recent statistics from the courts service on court backlogs, so we are looking to the future and thinking about what we know is coming, what we can anticipate and how we design a model for our estate that enables us to support people on their rehabilitation journey.
For the women and for the new prison in Glasgow, we have designed a different type of model that involves house blocks. It builds on best evidence so that we can have smaller cohorts and can engage more closely with prisoners, work with them in their groups and support them with their rehabilitation. All of that has been factored in, but it is very much a model that looks at what will be required in the longer term.
I will ask about rehabilitation and pre-release planning.
We have high numbers of people in prison in Scotland. Teresa Medhurst, you spoke about the purposes of prison. If we accept that one of its purposes should be aiming to reduce reoffending, what more could be done on that, and what would be the budgetary implications?
We heard from Linda Pollock about some aspects of rehabilitation work, but we regularly hear from others that prisoners are unable to access programmes. In your written submission you set out the impact of high prison population numbers on your ability to carry out such work. Will you say a little more about budgets and whether specific groups need to be prioritised for work on rehabilitation and planning for release? The evidence suggests that the more planning takes place, the less likely it is that there will be reoffending.
You have asked an interesting question. We often talk about our prison population, but there are different groups within that. We concentrate a lot on our long-termers, precisely because they are with us for a long time. Because of their risk profile, the costs for them are much higher. Equally, the short-term cohort are—to use an unfortunate term—what we might call revolving-door individuals, who continually come into and out of custody. We want to break the cycle that happens with them.
There is also the larger remand population. Because of the different legal position that they are in, and given the current funding situation, we would require additional funding to enable us to provide services and supports to them in the same way as we do for short-termers or long-termers. I am afraid that I do not have a figure for costs for that here but, if we were asked to do so, we could examine the likely costs.
Services and supports are available for the long-term population, and we recognise that we can and should do more for them. We have already invested additional money into the prisoner pathway work to which Linda Pollock referred. We have a programme of work that will run over five years. The position is complex because we are talking not just about our operational staff but about having psychology, health and justice social work input. The funding profile would sit with us for the vast majority of that work, but not all of it.
Linda, do you want to say a bit more about our additional costs?
We have spoken previously about short-termers and the emergency release programmes that have been running. You will know from the previous tranches of emergency release that a lot of work has been put into pre-release planning, in recognition that it would happen more quickly for some people. We worked particularly with our third sector partners and throughcare supports to support people on those programmes.
Ms Clark, you will know the statistics for short-termers returning into custody. That number came down through our emergency release work, which we put down to our pre-release planning. Therefore, we are learning from that for the new tranches of early-release prisoners and for the support that we can provide more generally for prisoners’ re-entry into the community in the run-up to their release.
That further information would be really helpful.
Can you say anything about the financial impacts on other areas of the criminal justice system of the failure to rehabilitate people while they are in prison? Have you done any work on that, or have you a view on it?
11:45
There are obviously impacts on every part of the system, even for long-termers. I am just trying to think through how best to frame my response to your question. For the shorter-term cohort, there are ways of looking at how often they have been in contact with the court system again, and that will have an impact on police and procurators fiscal. There might be a way of measuring the financial impact, but it would be fairly complex and we have not looked at that.
My final question is about sex offenders. There has been an awful lot of debate about programmes for such offenders and whether there are effective ways to rehabilitate them. Can you say anything about how much resource the Scottish Prison Service puts into such work, the effectiveness of that work, and the budget implications should there be attempts to expand it?
We do not define our resource in that way—we do not separate our costs by population type—but you have raised an interesting point, particularly because we know that the growth that we are likely to see over the next few years will be in the numbers of prisoners convicted of sexual offences. In some respects, they require more intensive support in relation to programme delivery. However, the issue is not just about programmes; it is also about the multidisciplinary case management process that sits alongside those offenders and about the planning for their return to communities. Given the nature of their offences, for a variety of reasons, it is more challenging to plan for the return of such offenders to the community than it is to plan for the return of those in our mainstream population. All justice partners will require to spend a more concentrated amount of time considering that work, given that we know that there will be an increase in the number of such offenders.
Thank you.
I will bring in Fulton MacGregor, and then members can ask some follow-up questions.
Before I ask a question about fatal accident inquiries, I will ask about the social care aspect, which you have spoken about and which I am really interested in. That is changing the whole shape of prison care. Do you have any idea what share of the costs of social care is being incurred by the Scottish Prison Service and how much is falling on the NHS? Is there any overlap? If so, can anything be done in that regard?
I can provide the costs of social care for the Prison Service, but I cannot provide the costs for the NHS. I am sure that, if NHS representatives were here, they would say that they are not social care providers, but I know that the NHS provides much of the input and support that those individuals require in relation to health conditions. I am not sure how the NHS would be able to distil those costs, but we would be able to provide our social care costs.
Could you provide the committee with those costs in writing?
Absolutely.
I should declare an interest in that my wife works at the state hospital, which is a high-security facility as well as a health-based one. Could other aspects of prisoner care move to that basis? That question is more about policy than about the budget, but how could such a move impact prison budgets?
It would depend on what kind of construct was developed. I should say at the outset that we are not social care experts; we rely on our partners to advise us on the types of services and supports that are required. We have criminal justice social work provision in prisons, but its area of expertise does not cover adult social care so, even within that construct, there is another complexity.
I could imagine a different type of facility that was much more aligned with care home facilities, and Linda Pollock mentioned earlier the different model of custody for women. Having a different type of facility would probably require a model and a staffing profile that differed from the existing ones in our prisons. We might also have to reconsider existing licence conditions for individuals, whereby their ability to move around and access the community, and potentially reoffend, is fairly restricted.
It is a policy question, so it is not for me to say. I could see that quite a different model would be better suited to those individuals’ needs, while also ensuring that the sentences that the courts have passed are fulfilled.
I move on to my more substantive question. In your submission, you said that a resource increase is needed to meet
“Additional costs to support the implementation of the FAI Taskforce recommendations.”
Could you set out what that resource requirement is and what it covers, and the implications with regard to deaths in custody if you do not have the budget to implement those recommendations?
Since the determination and recommendations were delivered, the Scottish Prison Service has set up a task force with various workstreams, some of which are led by our own staff and others by expertise that we have seconded into the organisation from the national health service, the Scottish Government and other sectors. We have worked at pace to develop a range of responses that should meet the recommendations set out by the court.
That work has highlighted that different elements are involved. We have in-cell technology; the piloting of the ligature toolkit; and the revision and overhaul of our suicide prevention and anti-bullying strategies. All those things will have training requirements, and potentially resource requirements for staffing.
Although we have pursued all that work at pace and we will produce reports and updates to the timescales that have been identified, we will not, at that stage, be able to properly identify what the resource costs are likely to be. That work will have to be undertaken after completion of all the other work required to meet the recommendations.
I will come in with a couple of questions. The first is on early release. New legislation has been enacted with regard to early release, as opposed to emergency release. I am interested in the budgetary impact on the Scottish Prison Service in facilitating the early release of prisoners under the new legislation. Is a rough figure available for that cost? There has been emergency release, and the on-going early release programme is under way now. I am interested to understand what the cost of that is to the Scottish Prison Service, if you are broadly able to share that with us.
I do not have a figure for that cost with me; I can write to the committee with that separately.
We would be able to identify the on-going costs to prepare for the implementation of the legislation—unless there were any additional costs, but I do not think that there were. I would be happy to write the committee separately to provide that information.
That would be appreciated.
I come to my second question. During this morning’s session, we have spoken a lot about the size of the prison population, but we have not really dug into the distinctions between the convicted population and the remand population. We have also spoken about long-term prisoners and the pathway project work.
I would be interested to know—again, from a budgetary perspective—if there are elements of the prison population that are what we might call budget intensive. Is it quite difficult to see the nuance of that?
It is not something that we, as an organisation, undertake to look at.
You mentioned orders for lifelong restriction. We know that the type of intense management that is required for that population will come with an additional resource cost, but, as I said, we do not have a breakdown of that. There are other portions of the population, but the response comes down more to an individual’s risk profile and individual needs. We have individuals who will be far more resource intensive to manage, either for the duration of their sentence or for particular parts.
We know that, over the course of a sentence, long-term prisoners are more resource intensive than short-termers. Short-termers will often decide whether they want to engage, because they know that they will be released on a definitive date. For those on remand, as I said, the legislative framework is slightly different, but that aspect is not something that we have ever been asked to consider.
Staying on the subject of the nuances of the population, we know that community custody units have been an excellent model to introduce in Scotland. Are there any intentions to alter that model in the context of budgetary constraints? Alternatively, is it proving its value and, if anything, you would like to see it expanded in years to come?
We are still in the early stages of operating community custody units. We would want them to be open for at least a five-year period before reviewing them, to ensure that we understand the situation fully and give the units time to embed. It is a distinctively different way of operating for both prison staff and communities, so we want to be able to maximise the learning and identify thereafter how that can be taken forward, either wholly or in part, to other population sectors or segments across the organisation.
Liam Kerr would like to come back in with a follow-up.
I have a very quick question. Earlier, Pauline McNeill asked about the new prisons. She mentioned HMP Highland, which you told me earlier was due to open next year.
It is due for completion next year.
Right. You said in response to Pauline McNeill that, at the point when it opens, it would be staffed with broadly the same people who are currently working at HMP Inverness.
That will necessarily come with the training costs that you identified, but, if the prison has greater capacity, there will also need to be a recruitment exercise. All that will come with an extra cost, so has that figure been factored into the £40 million increase on last year that you require? If not, what is the extra figure that will be required to open the new prison?
12:00
The new establishment will require additional staff, because we are moving from a prison with 100 places to one with 200 places. We have done a lot of modelling, profiling and planning in relation to that, particularly with regard to how we would increase the staff complement in advance of HMP Highland opening. Dual operation of the two prisons will be required for a short time, and we are still working through the operational plans to determine that. However, the additional staffing requirement has been factored into the budget for next year.
So that is within the figure of £40 million.
It is in the fuller budget submission that we provided. On where the £40 million pressure sits, you could segment things any way that you want—is it the additional staff for HMP Highland or is it this or is it that? If we do not have that money there will be things that we cannot do, but HMP Highland will still need to open.
I understand.
As members have no further questions, I will finish with one that has evolved from a wider bit of work that the Parliament and its committees are undertaking, to look at the activity that is under way in public sector organisations to meet our climate change targets and reduce emissions in specific sectors. I am interested to hear a wee bit about what has been undertaken in the Scottish Prison Service and whether you anticipate that additional resource or funding will be required to allow the work to continue.
We take our responsibilities for tackling climate change very seriously. That has been factored into the facilities in our new builds. For example, the closure of Inverness and Barlinnie prisons will have a significant impact, and the new facilities will meet all the new legislation requirements and targets. The organisation has on-going projects, which we require capital funding to support. As we have done for many years, we have factored that into this year’s and next year’s budgets. For next year, we have increased the funding that we require to meet our climate change obligations.
Where we are coming from in particular is the fact that there is a great opportunity in the new estate development but also the need to understand the challenges associated with the older parts of the estate. If there is a requirement for additional funding resource to allow you to keep the older parts of the estate wind and watertight—never mind to reduce their carbon emissions—it is important to know what the cost implications of that might be. That goes back to Liam Kerr’s question whether the costs would be met within the additional amount of £40 million that you are seeking and which was quoted earlier.
You are absolutely right. As construction has taken place to develop existing prisons and build new ones, we have kept pace with changes in legislation and expectations, up to and including the recent opening of HMP Stirling, as well as Highland and Glasgow prisons. On HMP Inverness and HMP Barlinnie, I have no figures for costs. We have profiled the costs of the investment that is required to maintain the prisons up to the point at which we know that they will be replaced by Highland and Glasgow prisons.
Thank you. It is helpful to understand that.
If there are no more questions from members, we will draw our evidence session to a close; it has been really helpful, so thank you very much indeed for joining us.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will now move into private session.
12:05 Meeting continued in private until 13:00.