Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 04 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 4, 2000

Official Report 206KB pdf

---

Remand Prisoners

Members have received a copy of the chief inspector's report, "Punishment First—Verdict Later?", although I do not know whether they received it in time to read it. I have read it, and feel that we must comment on it at a preliminary stage, at least; the overall impression—which would bear out our own experience from visits to Longriggend and Low Moss—is that remand prisoners in Scotland are being held in worse conditions than are convicted prisoners. That is not satisfactory.

The report contains much detail, and I was reminded of the young man to whom Scott Barrie and I spoke when we visited Longriggend. He had been remanded in custody four times but had yet to receive any form of custodial sentence; whether he was acquitted when his case went to trial, or whether he was found guilty and given non-custodial punishment, he had been in Longriggend four times. We are in danger of using remand as a form of punishment.

That is a fair point. I have flicked through the report only briefly. It is divided broadly into two parts: one part deals with the conditions under which people are being held, which are appalling in certain institutions; the other part deals with the way in which remand is used. The report does not explore the latter in great detail, but those of us who have worked in the criminal justice system have suspicions about the way in which remand is used by various sheriffs and courts. That is an important point, to which we must return; we will not be able to do it justice today. The issue is not only the way in which people are held in custody—concerning though that is—but the way in which remand is used and the possible alternatives to remand.

We might want to consider that issue in the context of the budget process.

I have three points. First, it is difficult to argue that we abuse the remand system as Scott Barrie has suggested. We used to do that; sheriffs used to be guilty of giving people four weeks on remand to teach them a lesson, whether or not they were guilty, but that does not happen much any more. People are remanded, by and large, in the public interest. The courts release people on bail unless there is good reason to keep them in custody. I suspect that some people—Phil Gallie may be one of them—might argue that people are sometimes released who ought to be remanded.

Secondly, provision is patchy. I have visited the unit for remand prisoners in Saughton, which is mentioned in glowing terms in the report; it is a marvellous facility. It is wrong to suggest that everywhere in the country people are being remanded in conditions of squalor. I understand that Longriggend will begin to shut down this week, and that prisoners who appear in court from this week onward will not return to Longriggend—that institution is finished.

Thirdly, there is a problem with remand. In Scotland, there has been a culture in which the best facilities have not been allocated to remand prisoners. All my life, the culture has been to say that people who are on remand are in prison for a relatively short time and that, therefore, it does not matter what happens to them, whereas people who are in prison for a longer term must be provided with facilities. The latter is true: if people are in prison for years, a level of facility must be provided—it is a management issue to provide facilities. However, in C hall at Barlinnie, which has been the remand hall for the whole of my professional life, people were just locked up for 23 hours a day and nobody cared much about it because of the culture that I described.

We need to emphasise that, if that has been the culture—and I believe that it has—it must be changed. We should point to Saughton, and to what its governor—who has just left—did in allocating resources to remand prisoners. If any member of the committee wants to see the way in which a remand unit can be run, they should ask to be shown around Saughton. It is a fabulous example, and is worth having a look at.

The patchiness of provision is an issue, but the problem that we will face after 3 October is that the variation in provision will be a ground for a claim under the European convention on human rights. That matter must be addressed with some urgency.

What alarmed me most about the report was the indication that nobody in the Scottish Prison Service is employed to look into the issue of remand prisoners—there is no national strategy for those prisoners and no individual with whom the buck stops. The Scottish Prison Service must address that.

That is right. I was unable to get into the body of the report in the time that was available, but I had the opportunity to read the introduction, the summary of recommendations and the questionnaire. Paragraph 8.24 states that

"there is no written policy for remand prisoners, though we understand that SPS HQ is in the process of preparing one."

There is no standardisation, which is important. Also important is the fact that remand prisoners are regarded as category B prisoners—that surprised me—and as a threat to the public, although they are not often that. I am sure that the fact that they are housed in the worst conditions, because they are in prison only for an interim term, will give rise to ECHR claims.

We should also bear in mind the increasing number of young women who are on remand, and the changing culture that Clive Fairweather described. Many people who are on remand have drug problems; that is a social issue that gives rise to a different kind of criminal behaviour. Remand is obviously not the answer for people in that situation. Finally, in all this mess, there is the cost to the public purse that need not be there. That money could be used differently, to provide alternatives to the expensive remand system, in which the average cost is £28,000 per prisoner.

Before I call Pauline McNeill, I will bring in Michael Matheson and Euan Robson, as they indicated earlier that they wished to comment.

I was interested in the report's comments on the categorisation of prisoners. When we visited Longriggend, we heard that all remand prisoners are in category B; they are viewed as being a danger to the public, despite the fact that some of them have been remanded for shoplifting offences. That point is brought out in the report. It is interesting that the report suggests that there could be some management flexibility if the categories were split, with the majority of remand prisoners becoming category C prisoners. The report also suggests that that would lead to a reduction in costs in the longer term. That is an important point, as that proposal would deal with different issues: costs, proper management and the fact that different types of prisoners mix together. Prison officers at Longriggend told us that it was most unfortunate that dangerous prisoners mix with genuine category C prisoners when they are in the two dining halls for meals.

The other point that struck me forcibly was that some of the facilities for access to lawyers were not good. I suspect that that will be challenged under the European convention on human rights because of the provisions of article 6, which deals with defence preparation. If prisoners have difficulties in preparing their defence because they do not have adequate access to their lawyers, the Executive must take that on board. A number of other issues are raised in the report—one could do a good day's work just spending some time on it. It might be interesting to hear from the report's authors, if that were possible.

Quite a bit of the report focuses on the difficulties of remand prisoners' living conditions and so on, but I am particularly troubled about the provision of services to remand prisoners, which the report also highlights. I note with particular concern paragraph 3.28, which refers to prisoners with mental disorders and the fact that there appears to be a lack of support systems for mentally ill prisoners. Obviously, staff are concerned about that, as they do not have the necessary skills to deal with those prisoners. That was reflected in an earlier paragraph that referred to the way in which remand prisoners are seen by a doctor when they arrive and thereafter by a nurse—

Are you speaking about Barlinnie prison?

Yes. Prisoners must indicate by 6.30 am if they wish to see the doctor on the same day. I am particularly concerned about the number of people who are sent to prison who have a mental disorder; I am concerned not only about the services that are provided in prison, but about preventive measures for people with mental health problems. Given that the report contains more than 17 recommendations for the SPS, we have a duty to ask the service what it will do to tackle the issues that are raised in the report. We should consider the wider issue of services for people with mental health problems; if need be, we should take evidence from organisations that are specialists in that field on what action the SPS should take.

Lord McLean is conducting an inquiry into mentally disordered offenders, and information from his committee may well be published quite soon.

I am aware of that report, but there is an issue within the SPS on the provision of medical services to prisoners who have mental health problems. It is inevitable that we will continue to lock up people who have mental health problems, and we must ask whether the mechanism by which services are provided is the most appropriate one.

Do we know whether the McLean committee's remit extends to post-conviction treatment of prisoners, or is it looking into the pre-conviction scenario only?

I am not positive. I understand that Lord McLean is examining the whole area of how we deal with—in the broadest sense—mentally disordered offenders. He and his committee have been all over the world—they have been to America and all over Europe. He has not just spoken to prison services, but has looked at best practice worldwide. We will get a full report from him, at which time I hope that we will be able to consider this issue.

We will contact the McLean committee to establish its remit and to find out whether it is examining the situation both in prisons and in courts. That would be useful information.

I have not had a chance to read the report in detail, but from what I have read, it appears that the system is quite shocking.

In general, the underlying philosophy on remand prisoners must change. We must shift the emphasis more towards the fact that prisoners on remand are innocent, as at the moment they are not separated from other prisoners at all. Changing that philosophy will be a hard task.

I agree with Euan Robson's comment that reading the report would probably be a good day's work; perhaps we should set aside more time for it. I would be in favour of that.

We should make one or two recommendations on areas that we feel strongly about. For example, I feel strongly about the treatment of remand prisoners. There has also been growing media interest in that—a piece on the practice of slopping out in Barlinnie was shown on BBC about two weeks ago. If we were to make recommendations, I would highlight that issue; ending that practice for remand prisoners should be a priority. One way or the other, we should spend some time at a future meeting on this report. We should make two or three recommendations that we feel strongly about and that we can put to the Executive, to try to turn around the position of remand prisoners.

I am concerned that we should try to temper our justice system to the facilities that are available. I remind members that, just a few weeks ago, the Minister for Justice took £13 million out of funding for prisons. Much of that money was geared towards improving facilities in prisons—that is the basic problem.

Gordon Jackson and Pauline McNeill commented that it was ridiculous that people who have not been found guilty of crimes should be subject to the worst prison conditions; something is wrong with the system and that should be addressed.

I do not want to take a step back, but Euan Robson referred to people being remanded who were charged with offences such as shoplifting. If he were to talk to retail organisations, he would find that shoplifting is a multimillion-pound business and that the people who are involved in shoplifting are hardline crooks. Everyone—the old, the disabled, people who cannot look after their own affairs—is persecuted when groups of such criminals move into an area. Shoplifting is a serious crime that affects everyone, and just because someone is on a shoplifting charge should not mean that they are not remanded.

Only yesterday, an individual who had been on bail was found guilty of murder. I am concerned about Gordon Jackson's suggestion that the courts are not applying bail properly and that they are sometimes reluctant to put people on remand. I take a slightly different view on that point.

I was astounded by Mr Fairweather's comments when he attempted to defend the prison service's meek acceptance of the £13 million reduction in funding.

I want to examine the report in more detail before commenting further, but I am sure that all committee members are concerned about the situation.

I have not yet read the whole report—a copy is still chasing me round the country and has not quite caught up with me yet—but Fiona Groves kindly photocopied the section on HM prison Inverness for me. That reminded me that the same point on the importance of good induction programmes for remand prisoners was made in a previous HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland inspection report, which was one of the first issues that the committee considered. Inverness prison has a good induction programme, which has been held up as a model, yet when I asked about such programmes during our consideration of that report, the witnesses said, "Oh, well—they are up there in the Highlands, where everyone is very nice and the prisoners do not give much trouble." That attitude was possibly a little patronising. If Inverness prison is being held up as an example of good practice, other prisons should examine what it is doing.

I direct members' attention to paragraph 1.26 of the report, which indicates that Scotland sends

"a significantly greater proportion of people to prison on remand than any other European country".

The report indicates that not much research has been done internationally on remand prisoners, but such statements about Scotland and imprisonment continually surprise me. I do not understand why that sort of disparity arises.

It may be that, because we have a strict time limit on remand, the courts take a more relaxed view of putting people on remand than do other European countries. For example, the system in Spain is generous, with a fixed limit for custody on remand of four years. It may be that judges in Spain think very carefully indeed about putting people on remand, as they know that they will spend a lengthy time in custody. The short, 110-day rule in Scotland may lead to it not being regarded as a particularly big deal to put someone on remand—perhaps that is what is beginning to happen.

That does not take away from the point made by Phil Gallie. A journalist telephoned me yesterday about the case that Phil mentioned, and I pointed out the irony of the situation. We have a report that talks about the fact that over one third of the people who are remanded in custody are charged with crimes of dishonesty—most people would not categorise those prisoners as dangerous—yet someone who was found guilty of murder was out on the streets. That raises questions about the where the balance lies.

Ironically, I wanted to raise the same point about us having more people on remand than is the case in most European countries.

Phil Gallie glossed over the fundamental point that less than 50 per cent of people who are remanded end up with a custodial sentence; we should debate that point further.

It is clear from members' comments that the committee has many views about this subject and that further work must be done, arising not just from the report but from other investigations into the prison service. We must return to the subject, given that the report also talks about the huge increase in the number of unruly certificates for 14 to 17-year-olds that have been imposed during the past few years. Members will remember that I wanted to discuss youth custody; we will talk about that subject when we submit our bids for future work. The committee should consider a number of issues that arise from the report.

We have not yet commented on the important chapter on "Alternatives to Remand in Custody". Perhaps we should focus on that subject, as the provision of alternatives to custody is patchy. Magistrates and sheriffs often feel that they have no alternative but to remand, although they might have considered a rather different approach had alternatives been available within their area.

We are having an interesting discussion, but we must focus and decide where we want the debate to lead. I hesitate to suggest that we might want to consider to whom we should issue invitations to come to talk to the committee. We cannot fix a specific date, as we do not know when time might be available.

I referred to the misuse of resources—the money spent on remanding people could be better spent elsewhere. Following Scott Barrie's comments, I am wondering how we can focus the investigation. We could spend for ever on the work that we have already done on women prisoners and young offenders, which links neatly with remand and the use of resources for alternatives to custody. I feel that we have lost the impetus that we gained from the questions and research that we carried out earlier. We now have the opportunity to make use of that work and draw it into a report on our views.

If we are going to take any sort of evidence on the matter, we must focus on two issues. First, there is an issue for the Prison Service about how to treat people who are remanded. Secondly, we must consider the basis on which we remand people. We do not seem to be in agreement on whether we remand too many people or even whether we remand the wrong people. That decision has nothing to do with the Prison Service or the Executive—it is a 100 per cent judicial decision. The Prison Service will simply tell us that it has no control over that.

If we are interested in whether the right people or the right numbers of people are remanded, we must ask the judges to come and tell us the basis on which they remand people. I would go to the top of the house; I would invite the Lord President to come and tell us the basis on which people are remanded. The decisions that he makes on remand prisoners are tempered down through the system. Every person who is refused bail can, and often does, appeal to the High Court against that decision. The culture of remand is decided down the road from the Parliament. Usually, one would go to the other top judge, the Lord Justice-Clerk, but as he is conducting the Paddington rail inquiry, I suggest that we hear from the Lord President.

In the first instance, we should write to the Lord President and ask him or someone similar to come and justify why people are remanded. Anyone else that we ask will just pass the buck and say that it is the decision of the Lord President, so we might as well go to the top of the house.

Gordon Jackson's comments are very useful. At the very least, we should write to the Scottish Prison Service and the Minister for Justice to ask them to put their preliminary response to the report in writing to the committee. We might also want to consider the issue of the remand culture to which Gordon referred. It might be difficult to organise evidence from the Lord President because of his commitments. However, we should at least indicate our desire to hear from someone on the matter. Andrew Mylne has just reminded me that the Executive response is printed in the report.

We need to flag up our immediate concerns. There is some difficulty because of the time. We cannot currently say when we might want to take evidence from people on the matter. We can only compile a short list of potential witnesses and make progress as and when the time becomes available. As members will recall from the way in which we went through the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 and the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, time can become available at short notice.

When you write to the Scottish Prison Service, could you ask it to advise us when its report will be available? We will want to take evidence from the SPS after reading that report. Paragraph 8.24 of "Punishment First—Verdict Later?" says:

"Currently, there is no written policy for remand prisoners, though we understand that SPS HQ is in the process of preparing one."

It would be useful to know when that will be ready.

That is in respect of policy; I would like some administrative recognition that there should be a specific desk at which the buck stops. Nobody in the central office of the SPS appears to be responsible for remand. That is a cause for concern.

I would like to look over the previous Official Reports of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which I have not yet done. I would like to see what Mr Fairweather said in defence of the Prison Service when we heard evidence from him and compare it with the comments in the HMI report. The report has not been produced overnight. There could be some conflict between his evidence to the committee and what is said in the report.

You can do that.

I am clear about the direction that we should take. Of the two distinct areas of concern, one is more urgent than the other and that is the conditions of remand prisoners. Euan Robson mentioned prisoners not being able to get access to solicitors, not being free to move about and not being allowed to watch television and so on. That is an urgent matter and I would like it to be prioritised. As Gordon Jackson suggested, we must also tackle the whole remand culture from the top. We can approach those distinct areas in tandem. If we write to the Minister for Justice, we should indicate that those are the two distinct areas that we want to consider.

It is important that we keep the issue moving, even if we are not able to devote vast amounts of time to it. There are only two more items on the agenda, so we have time to discuss the matter further if members wish. However, as members need time to read the report in more detail, it might be preferable to come back to the matter at a later meeting.

We will consider a draft prison report at the first meeting after the recess. Does the committee agree to consider that report in private, as is our normal practice with draft reports?

Members indicated agreement.