Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 11 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 11, 2000

Official Report 326KB pdf

---

Scottish Prisons

I ask committee members to take their seats so that we can start.

We will now hear from Mrs Marjory Russell, the convener of the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments. A short written paper was circulated to committee members yesterday, in a package that they will have received either last night or this morning. It is a brief paper outlining the background to the association.

Mrs Russell, you have brought somebody with you. Would you like to introduce that individual?

Yes, thank you. We are delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the committee. I am the convener of the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments. On my right is Councillor Willie Clarke, who is the vice-convener.

Members will be aware that every prison must have a visiting committee. The committees are appointed for adult prisons by the local authorities, and at least one third of their members must be non-councillors. There are about 200 members, and about 84 of them are non-councillors. The committees for young offenders institutions have, in the past, been appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assume that those appointments will, in future, be made by the Minister for Justice. The current term of office for visiting committee members runs out at the end of this year. I presume that new appointments will then be made by the Minister for Justice.

As I said, every prison must have a visiting committee. We have great responsibilities and statutory obligations. We have access to all prisons at all times and to all parts, and we must be allowed to speak to every prisoner. Obviously, we use discretion when requesting such access. Nevertheless, it is a big responsibility to represent the outside world inside prisons, and to ensure that the prisoners know that, in their closed community, there are independent people who answer only to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are in no way accountable to the Scottish Prison Service and we try hard to make that clear.

Every prison must be visited by two committee members every fortnight, so there is regular visiting. Our association was formed 10 years ago to help committee members to work out what they were supposed to be doing, as their remit was initially quite vague. It organises training and tries to help people to determine best practice. Because of the changing identity of visiting committee members—committees that are appointed by local authorities change at every local authority election—it has been difficult to establish a general purpose. None the less, that is what our association tries to do. We provide leaflets and meet each month in the different prisons.

Should members of the committee want to ask detailed questions, we are quite knowledgeable about every prison. I represent the young offenders prison in Cornton Vale and so I base my knowledge mainly on young people and women. Councillor Willie Clarke is the chairman of the visiting committee at Glenochil prison, so he is the person to ask about adult males.

The point that we are trying to put across is that prisoners are not at all homogeneous; a prisoner cannot simply be stuck wherever there is a space. There is huge variety among remand prisoners, women prisoners, young prisoners, and the prisoners who fall into the strange gap between having a personality disorder and having a mental illness. The prisons must accept everybody who is sent to them, but those of us who act as visiting committee members are conscious of the fact that prison is definitely not the right place for many of those people. It is difficult to tell what would be the right place for many of them. However, we suggest that when cuts are made in the prisons budget, the Parliament should listen to the visiting committees, which have ideas on ways in which that money might be better spent.

The cost of maintaining prisons is enormous—nearly £28,000 per prisoner per annum. That money is not spent on luxuries for prisoners. The amount that is spent on food per prisoner is about £12 a week. There is a huge disparity between those figures. When people hear of £28,000 being spent, they think that prisoners are living in some sort of luxury, although I assure you that they are not. I hope that people will think before they spend that kind of money on something that is possibly a waste of money.

Thank you, Mrs Russell.

I shall explain briefly the background to the reason for our inviting you here. At the beginning of the parliamentary year, we anticipated that we would have a quick look at the report by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons. While we were doing that, the announcements were made about the budget cuts and potential job losses and prison closures. Our initial inquiry was, therefore, extended to take those issues into account and to examine more specifically the impact of those decisions on the Prison Service. I anticipate that most of the questions that committee members will ask you will relate specifically to that and to your impressions of the situation. You are in a particular position, as you are lay people in the Prison Service, rather than professionals. You might, therefore, view prisons with eyes that are more like ours, rather than with the eyes of prison officers or of those who are otherwise involved in the Prison Service. From that point of view, we look forward to your input. However, I hope that your input will be confined to the area that we are investigating at this stage, which is the likely impact of the closures that have been announced.

In your introductory remarks, Marjory, you said that you had some ideas about where budgets could or should be spent. Perhaps you could give us some indication of that.

Following on from what the convener said, I would be interested to know your views on the proposed closures of Dungavel and Penninghame prisons. You said that prisoners are not a homogeneous group—that there are different categories and types of prisoner. In previous evidence, we were told that there is a mismatch between prison provision and the type of prisoner who is likely to be in the system. Can you comment on that?

There are things that we would like money to be put into. Bail hostels are essential to divert people from prison, especially young women—or any women. There are few women's places in bail hostels and the number of women on remand is ridiculous.

People awaiting deportation, who are not criminals and have not been sentenced should—as happens south of the border—be properly housed, although not at the expense of the Scottish Prison Service. Something more cost-effective could be found for people with a personality disorder—as distinct from mental illness, as there is no clear line between the two. Most prison governors agree that the heavy security that is required for some prisoners is required only for a relatively small number of prisoners. That, after all, is what is putting the cost up.

Penninghame and Dungavel have carried out their work well. We will not go into how valuable they are to their communities, as that is not relevant here, but we feel that it is dangerous to assume that a person on, say, a 32-year sentence—one was released from Penninghame recently—can be put out of the door at Perth or Barlinnie. There have to be good, open prison facilities for people on long sentences, so that the world that they come back into, which will be different from the world they left, can be properly introduced to them. That will give them a much better chance of success.

The Scottish Prison Service's strategy needs to be looked at in depth. The current approach does not do that; it is reactive, and I wonder what the reaction is based on. We feel that it is not just a case of employment at Penninghame. It is a disgrace that Scotland has the highest prison population in western Europe.

It is obvious that people who are a danger to the public should be locked up, but many facets should be addressed. Penninghame is very saleable. I hope that the prison is not part of this strategy, because there is land that can be sold on. I am not saying that that is a certainty, but it is a concern. There has not been what I consider crucial consultation, involving all the bodies associated with the government of prisoners, of which visiting committees are a part. That is very worrying.

The Scottish Parliament was intended to be open and accountable, but situations such as this cause concern. Sometimes the perception of what is happening does not relate to the facts. A lot of money could be spent n the service. We want people to be rehabilitated into society so that they do not return to prison or at least to minimise the number who reoffend.

A lot of money should be spent on education in prisons. Education is a key issue outside prisons, but it is also important for people in prison, to equip them for their release. Some tremendous work is done in prisons, but there is a shortage of contracts. I appreciate that that is not an easy problem to solve, because it involves discussion with the trade unions.

Work in prisons needs to be considered, as many prisoners are spending their time idle and are not being rehabilitated. That needs to be considered in depth.

We still have slopping out in prisons, which is a Victorian situation. We are in a new century—a new millennium—yet slopping out still goes on. It is a disgrace and an indignity to anyone. Working jointly, there could be development on quite a few aspects, including a reduction in the prison population and perhaps even the number of prisons. However, there have to be other facilities.

There should be an overall strategy, with full consultation, which in our opinion does not exist at present—we are just jumping in. We want to be part of such a strategy. We ask that we should be consulted about anything appertaining to the Prison Service. There will be times when we are right and times when we are wrong but, like other organisations, it is important for us to express our point of view. That will be beneficial to the service as a whole.

Willie has answered the question I had intended to ask, which concerned slopping out and how important prison visitors consider phasing it out to be. We hear that ending slopping out will now be put back by five or so years from the original plans. A prison chaplain in my constituency has been very concerned about that. I heard Willie say how concerned he is too, so there is no need to answer the question again.

The loss of liberty is supposed to be the punishment. People are not supposed to be punished in prison. We find that the people who are entering prisons, particularly the under-25s, have had a chaotic lifestyle. Most of them have ended up in prison by default and many of them live in a fantasy world. When we speak to them, we realise that neither their expectations, nor their tales of the past nor their relationships have any basis in reality. The main job is to build up some kind of self-respect. If people do not have respect for themselves, they will not have respect for anybody else.

Prisons should try to build up prisoners' self-respect. That cannot be done by denying night sanitation. Crowded, two-tier cells with stupid little pots in them do not build up anybody's self-respect. We agreed with all the aims in the plan for 2000, which we received around the time we heard of the closures. It is disappointing to find that the aims have been put back.

Will you now make formal submissions to the Executive about alternatives to custody? You have touched on that—it was very interesting. I see that Jim Wallace's evidence was that the prison population is projected to stabilise, partly due to the fact that alternatives will be considered. Will you make formal submissions, based on your practical visiting experience?

It was immediately before Christmas that we heard that we were coming here. The association has not met since. I hope that we will make some suggestions that seem to us to be viable.

We heard that additional bunk beds may be purchased, which would indicate an increase in doubling up in cells. Can you advise us of the effect that that might have on individual prisoners and on the prison community at large?

Unless cells are also doubled in size, doubling up is disastrous. Cells would be far too cramped. That would reduce people's chances of being dealt with as individuals and therefore the chances of their building up a feeling of self-respect.

It beggars the imagination to think what it would be like for an ordinary person to be locked in a cell for hours at a time with somebody with severe behavioural disorders. Recently, for example, someone sprayed her hair with hair lacquer and set fire to it.

I hope that doubling up does not take place, but would you go so far as to say that it might lead to disturbances in, or destabilisation of, prisons?

We do not want to be alarmist, but there is always the possibility of friction. A lot depends on the relationship between staff and prisoners, because staff have to deal with everyday events. That is an important relationship. Crowding people in, when some of them have problems, will incite them. How much more friction there will be is open to question, but one thing is certain: if prisoners are doubled up, there is more chance of problems.

I want to ask about the special unit at Barlinnie, which the chief inspector of prisons refers to in his note. It is Barlinnie, is it not? Have I got the wrong one?

The work that the unit has been doing, and the fact that it has been mothballed—

Peterhead.

Sorry. Peterhead. I knew by the blank looks that I had got the wrong name.

The chief inspector commented that there has been no evaluation of the very costly work at Peterhead. Do you have comments about that, as it tries to deal with very difficult prisoners as individuals?

The main problem is that the unit has a small capacity.

It is about 10.

Those in the unit will have to be returned to the prisons from which they came, which is a worry. The prisoners will be disappointed, because they have been working towards better things. When privilege or perceived opportunity is withdrawn from prisoners, they become bolshie; they feel that the system has let them down and that there is no point trying any more. That happens in a long sentence, when prisoners have made good progress but there is no further for them to go. If they are not then given open prison or parole conditions, they tend to revert. That aspect of the closure of the Peterhead unit would be a worry.

That is also true of Penninghame. I have visited the prison often. There is no doubt that it did a tremendous job of bridging the gap for people leaving prison. When it was first set up, the locality was totally opposed—I can understand that—but over the years the locality learned and worked alongside the prison and opposed its closure.

Other problems arise from the changes at Peterhead. Protected prisoners have been transferred to Glenochil, for example. That in itself creates certain problems, depending on the prison populations.

We are not opposed to change, accountability and monitoring, but we feel that that has not been achieved and that not enough discussion or thought has been put into this matter.

The chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service said that there is hostility among the local community. I lived close to Penninghame, in Newton Stewart, for 15 years, and I concur with what you have said: the community largely endorses the prison and the prisoners who work in it. It has had no difficulties over the years and I was pleased to hear your comments.

I was interested in what you said about consultation, Willie. I have not been a member of a visiting committee, but I am aware of the time-consuming and onerous aspects of visiting because of my local government background—I know that it requires a great deal of commitment. I would have thought that visiting gives people a unique insight into prison life and that they have no axe to grind.

Can you expand on the matters on which the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments has been consulted? Are you suggesting that there should be a statutory right to consult you about what is happening in the Scottish Prison Service? That would be an interesting matter to explore.

We have a statutory obligation to write up all our visits and to make an annual report to the Scottish Executive—formerly to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are also available to be consulted and to do any research that needs to be done, although I should say that we have not been used in that way.

We talk to people and try to represent them. We are there in the outside world—but by the grace of God, many of us would be inside. It is amazing how distorted the views of people who have never been in prisons are about the population inside.

I would like to draw a comparison with the English set-up. We struggle in Scotland; I appreciate that England, being a larger nation, has more prisons, but it has a large secretariat for back-up, whereas we have a—very capable—part-time secretary. We struggle to get any accommodation in prisons for visiting committees because of the lack of space. I think that there is only a small boxroom in Perth prison. Apart from that, we have no facilities for storing our confidential documents. With that in mind, there should be an examination of how we can play a more effective role.

I agree with Marjory Russell. We should be consulted. We do not claim to have all the answers, but we are part of the system and are offering our services. We want to be involved. Unfortunately, we have not been called to become involved until now.

I am a bit surprised at that. Are you saying that, in the past, when the plans for the Prison Service were considered, the chief executive or other members of the SPS never approached you to ask for your views on the way forward for prisons?

Yes, we are saying exactly that. We were never approached to my knowledge, and I have been involved for 20 years.

I will tell you who is very good at consulting us: the chief inspector of prisons. We have a very good relationship with him. I am not creeping, honest. [Laughter.]

The chief inspector has referred to the fact that the prison closure programme is probably unique. All your objectives and the matters that you have raised today seem to have been sacrificed to the immediate requirement to save £13 million. How do you feel about that?

I feel really bad about it. The only way in which I could feel better about it would be if that money were used to divert from prison people who need not be there now.

I think that the explanations of how that money will be used are different—but I will move on.

I would like to ask you about Penninghame. You referred to the importance of open prisons and the need to have somewhere where people who have been in prison for many years have the chance to break back into society. It seems that Penninghame was ideal: it is now accepted in the community and there is contact between prisoners and the community. One of the reasons for selecting Penninghame for closure seems to be its remoteness—it is around 50 miles south of Ayr. Do you think that is a good reason? During your visits, were there complaints from prisoners and their families about the remote location, or is that a non-issue for the prisoners?

That matter has not been raised with us by prisoners who spoke to us about conditions in Penninghame. The one thing that they were not too keen on was the dormitory accommodation. They were impressed, however, by the way in which the community accepted them and by the fact that they could go out.

When an ex-prisoner, especially one of long standing, is sent out into the community where the trouble happened, there is no chance for them, particularly if the press gets hold of the story. Taking people out of their home area is not a bad idea for open prisons. The other open prison is at Friarton, which is much further north.

One of the reasons open prisons are not full is the feeling in the Prison Service of a threat to other institutions. At least one governor has been honest enough to say that more prisoners could have been processed to go to open prisons, but that each governor was holding on in the hope that their institution would not get the chop. I think that much more time could be spent examining the categorising of prisoners.

It should be realised, for example, that young women who have been put on a life sentence at the age of 15 and have done eight years are absolutely no risk to society. I would take them home. We must consider alternatives: ways for such women to serve sentences in the community without being harried and pilloried by the press, and given no chance.

I take that as an issue apart, while recognising the sincerity with which you have made your comments. I wish to ask further about the location of Penninghame. The message that seems to be coming from the chief executive of the SPS, and the inspector of prisons, who is probably listening to this, is that we should put all our prisons in the central belt. Is that reasonable?

I do not think that that is reasonable at all. Come on: we all know about "not in my back yard" attitudes. Open prisons must be somewhere where open prisoners have a chance to make a living and be respectable people.

There is a fight to go to Penninghame: prisoners want to go there because it is a stage before getting out of prison, and part of the process. It is indeed 50 miles away from Ayr, but let us be realistic. It is perhaps because we live on a small island, but 50 miles is not a long way; 500 or 600 miles might be considered a long way in America. Most people either have a car or can get a car for visiting the prison. Taking into account the views of prisoners, who will want their families to visit them and to get out at the weekends, it was found that the location of Penninghame was highly desirable.

I asked someone to produce facts to prove that people from visiting committees were reluctant to go to Penninghame because it was too far away. You will find that they have not produced any such information.

That appears to be all the questions that we have for you. We are grateful for your evidence and we are particularly interested in the fact that there has been absolutely no consultation with your organisation. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee may wish to return to your situation as a separate future issue. Thank you for coming and giving us your views.

I now ask Her Majesty's inspector of prisons—himself—to come forward. Good morning, Mr Fairweather—no, good afternoon. Sorry, we are, as usual, running rather later than we had hoped.

You are accompanied by Eric Fairbairn, your deputy chief inspector, Mike Crossan, an inspector, and Brian Henaghen, a staff officer. Although we are struggling a little, I know that you have been following what the committee has been trying to do. You will realise that, because of the announcement made some months ago, our original interest in your report metamorphosed into a discussion of the likely effect and impact of the closures, job losses and so on.

I think, Mr Fairweather, that you were our first witness, since our investigation began with the report that you produced last year. It is apt, therefore, at least as far as this phase of the justice committee's investigation into prisons is concerned, that you will lead our final group of witnesses. We have, however, made a decision to examine the issue of female and young offenders, so we are not leaving the issue of prisons entirely. Thank you, Mr Fairweather, for coming to the committee again. I suspect that most of this afternoon's questions will focus on your response to the announcement made on the budget cuts and closures.

This was not going to be my first question, but I was surprised at what Marjory Russell had to say, and at Councillor Clarke's saying that prisoners are fighting to get into an open prison. That is at odds with evidence that we have heard up to now: we were told that prisoners did not want to go to Penninghame. Do you have a comment on that?

I think that most prisoners on long sentences would want to get into an open prison, because it is a progression. Of the two open prisons that I have visited—plus Castle Huntly—I would say that the majority would prefer to go to Noranside or Castle Huntly, rather than Penninghame. The reason given is that it is so far away. That is before they go; once individuals are there, there is not quite the same problem, although the matter is raised from time to time while they are there. It is not an overwhelming piece of evidence.

How do you view the loss of the Peterhead unit? On a technical point, is it the same type of unit as previously existed at Barlinnie, before it closed?

The Peterhead unit was spawned from the Barlinnie special unit. There are three units: the national induction centre, Shotts unit and Peterhead unit. Members have the report that we produced on Peterhead unit. When we were carrying out the inspection, I asked my team, "Do we need three units?" Peterhead unit is some distance away. We ended up in two minds—I am still in two minds about Peterhead unit. In an ideal world, I would like it to continue, but its location skews matters: it is a long way to go for most family members to maintain contact, and we are not talking about 50 miles down the road, but about a two or two and a half hours' journey. That is an important factor for the individuals concerned.

If there have to be cuts—forced upon the SPS—the unit could be considered, but I am glad to see that it has been mothballed; in other words it will be possible, depending on the future situation, for something like the unit as it was to continue.

The evaluation of the units at Peterhead and Shotts still needs to proceed. Much will depend on prisoner numbers: the more people come into the prison system, the more likely it is that there will be difficult individuals. The effect of the national induction centre will also be a factor. Over the years, the centre has prepared more people for longer sentences. That preparation has not been evaluated, and there may be fewer troublesome individuals in the system. Nobody knows—we are taking a step in the dark, losing around 20 staff.

I hear what you are saying.

My final question is on a different subject, but it is one about which I have some concern, given that the Scottish Prison Service is about to enter a fairly turbulent period. We have heard from the staff through the trade union and the Prison Staff Association—you may have seen their views recorded. I worry that some hostility is breaking out between management and prison staff, and I want some reassurances that you are mindful of that.

John Reidy of the Prison Staff Association has submitted a letter to us on the Scottish Prison Service information network rules, which govern what can and cannot be transmitted via e-mail. Do you know about John Reidy's suspension from the network? It suggests to me that all is not well between the management of the Prison Service—particularly in this area—and prison staff. That cannot be good for managing what will amount to some closures in the future.

I am not aware of the problem. I have spoken to Mr Reidy a number of times and am not aware of the specific case to which you refer.

We are touching on the impact of closures on morale. It is impossible to get something for nothing. Since the cuts were announced, we have continued our inspection programme and I detect a slightly different mood—not just among staff, but among prison management and governors. The speed and extent of the closures have led to the sort of decline in morale that would occur in any organisation that is faced with such a situation. There are worries about why management was setting aside money when prisons were struggling to make ends meet.

I do not know whether you can give the reassurance that I have requested, but the committee thinks that it is important that we have it from someone. I have only John Reidy's letter to go by, and there is always another side to the story, but I would like some reassurance that members of the Prison Staff Association and the trade unions may communicate with one another about this debate. If business is relevant to the interests of the staff, they should be able to communicate with one another freely, without being subjected to this kind of petty treatment.

In fairness, Pauline, Clive Fairweather has not seen the letter, which makes it difficult for him to comment on this case. You are referring to a situation in which an individual working for the Prison Service has been banned from putting the minutes of this committee on to the service's internal network. Obviously, Clive Fairweather does not know enough about the detail of individual cases to deal with them.

I do not.

However, do you agree that morale would be affected by that sort of rule?

I do. I do not know how long the cuts will impinge on morale. During the time in which I have been responsible for inspecting prisons, the staffing structure review had the greatest impact on morale prior to this, but the impact of the cuts has been just as great.

Mr Fairweather, you talk about cuts being forced on the Prison Service. In your submission, you refer to the four prison closures being most unusual. Should such a major change not have been thought out over a period of time, and should not all the relevant parties have been involved in discussions—particularly groups such as the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments, from which we have just heard?

There should certainly have been more time. The annual report that I submitted stated that, if numbers steadied, the closure of one or two isolated or less cost-effective establishments could be considered. I thought that Longriggend would certainly close this year and that Penninghame might close next year. Beyond that, I foresaw other closures, depending on the prison population.

With the loss of £13 million, however, the Scottish Prison Service had few options. The only place in which significant savings can be made is on staff. Once one has run through the figures, one might come up with a figure of 400. In an ideal world, there would have been more time for consultation all the way down. However, to achieve those cuts in the time scale that we are discussing, the Prison Service did not have much choice. I was not consulted—not that I needed to be—and nor were the visiting committees.

In defence of the Prison Service, I must mention the fact that the estates review team is coming to talk to me on Thursday to discuss how the next stage will be managed. In November, there was not enough time.

You have said that the process was based on financial considerations and had nothing to do with logic, objectives or the Prison Service's programme.

I think that there was a parallel logic about alternatives to custody. I have not seen any of the papers, but I think that logic was used in making those decisions.

It has taken me five years to arrive at my current position. When I started out as chief inspector of prisons, I thought, as a former layman, that the more prisons there were, the better. I have changed my opinion over time. Having seen the reality of the Prison Service, I am now of the school of thought that says, "Open a school; demolish a prison."

That is an opinion with which all members can sympathise. However, you have voiced your concerns about overcrowding and slopping-out. All the proposed programmes have been put back, and I am sure that you do not feel that we should be closing prisons at the expense of ending overcrowding and slopping-out.

Much will depend on future prison population figures. If alternatives are adopted and the population goes down to around 5,000, we will save money. If the population stays where it is at the moment—at around 6,000—money can be saved and it may be possible to carry on with all the improvement programmes, although there will be some delays. Nobody knows whether the population will rise but, if it were to rise to something like 6,700, that would be a different ball game.

Allow me to interject at that point, Mr Fairweather. At the Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting on Tuesday 23 November, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service stated quite baldly that the service was operating on an expected population increase to 6,700 by 2003-04.

I asked him:

"Do you expect the prison population to increase, rather than decrease?"

He answered:

"Absolutely."

I went on to ask him:

"So you intend to close establishments in the face of an expected increase in the prison population?"

He answered:

"Yes."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 23 November 1999; c 451.]

All the evidence that the committee has heard suggests that the prison population will increase, notwithstanding the alternative-to-custody approach, which most of us endorse.

Your comments on the closures were predicated on there not being overcrowding. In view of the bald statements made by the chief executive, do you have any comment on the likely impact of the cuts?

No one really knows how the population will change. The figure of 6,700 is a projection. I have been watching the situation for five years; each year I have been looking at figures and so on. I am still not sure what will happen. The figures are projections, and a whole lot of imponderables lie up ahead.

As I understand it, the estates review is looking at three options—5,000, 6,000 and 7,000. If we are to avoid overcrowding, some decisions, based on projections, will have to be made this spring or summer. That review is circulating among prison management; it considers possibilities such as whether new house blocks should be built, or even a prison on a new site.

A few moments ago, you said that the closure of one or two isolated or less cost-effective prisons could be considered. You also acknowledged that Penninghame was in your mind. The figures that I have seen suggest that Penninghame is one of the most cost-effective units. The argument that the prison is somewhat isolated concerns me, as it brings us back to the issue of prisons being located only in the central belt. We have heard from witnesses that prisoners have not complained about Penninghame being remote—indeed, there has been demand to go there—so how can you justify considering the closure of Penninghame?

Of all the places that I have looked at, I still think that Penninghame is a bit out on a limb for most prisoners from the central belt. However, another factor may get us around the difficulty. Depending on the prison population in about April or May of this year, it may be possible to consider mothballing Dungavel. That would leave some options for contingencies and for the unexpected. Depending again on the populations of different categories of prisoners—and on, for example, whether long-termers are silting up the system, which is a possibility—Dungavel could even, in due course, become an open prison again, as it has been in the past. Although still not an ideal location, Dungavel is 50 miles closer to the central belt than Penninghame is. I have mentioned that possibility to the chief executive, and we will study it a little bit further.

I have to watch out here, because I am in the business of inspecting prisons, not managing them. However, I am trying to find some way of not boxing ourselves in.

I have to declare a sympathetic interest in Penninghame because, as I have said, it is in my own—

Christine, can we avoid thinking about the local press releases please?

No, no—it is not for those. I want to come back to what Mr Fairweather wrote about Penninghame. He said:

"This open prison has served a very useful purpose in the past, in preparing long term prisoners for release into the community and also testing them prior to release."

Does that distinguish Penninghame from other open prisons?

No, it does not. The consideration of Penninghame for closure does not surprise me, but I am by no means against open prisons. We need to consider things very carefully; we do not want to lose all the value of open prisons. Now that we have a little more time, another possibility may be to mothball Dungavel and have it as a category C contingency location—it has been a category C prison in the past. Beyond that, it could be considered as a possibility for an open prison.

Do you feel that the Prison Service is not using open prisons enough? I gathered from the evidence that we heard from the Prison Staff Association that open prisons were not an easy option for prisoners, as there had to be an educational element.

It is possible that open prisons are not used enough. They are not an easy option for the Prison Service, which runs the risk of being criticised if individuals abscond. There have been difficulties in the Penninghame area. I have had a lot of correspondence on that—a lot of people are pro, but others are anti. An open prison is a hostage to fortune for the Prison Service, so the service is feeling its way very carefully.

I have another question about Peterhead's special unit. I do not have the paper that you wrote in front of me, but I get the feeling that you were ambivalent and that your view was that there was no proper evaluation of the work being done at the unit as against the costs. Is that a fair summary?

Yes.

Such an evaluation could show that a unit such as the one at Peterhead should exist for all its costs. That is why you are careful to hedge your bets and to say that it must be mothballed rather than closed.

Yes.

I want to ask about the categories of prisoners who are likely to become involved in alternatives to custody. Might they end up in open prisons?

No. Those who end up in open prisons are usually long-termers whose category changes as they come through the system. Originally, they may have been category A or B; they may then be deemed to be category C and finally category D—for open prison. Alternatives to custody do not really fit into that equation.

If there were a significant reduction in the prison population as a result of the development of alternatives to custody, where might we see the impact on prisoner categories and the prison population?

The impact would be on category C and local prisons. Alternatives to custody include alternatives to remand for alleged offenders.

Why, then, do we hear evidence that there are too many places in open prisons? It has been suggested to the committee that the population of open prisons is such that just two open prisons are justified, rather than the existing three.

That relates to some of the issues on categorising prisoners raised by the witnesses from the visiting committees. I am sure that if the categories were to change more rapidly—one cannot will that, as the prisoners must meet the standards required—more prisoners could be in open prisons. In the past, there have not been enough of them.

One of the other difficulties with open prisons is that they are isolated. Low-security prisoners serving short sentences typically come from the central belt. Barlinnie has a number of prisoners who could be category D prisoners and who could serve their time in an open prison. However, if they come from Garthamlock, it is not attractive for them to be told that the open prison is Castle Huntly, near Dundee. They prefer the advantages of staying locally, and travelling to Dundee is not a viable option for them.

We then face the question of whether the Prison Service would move those prisoners to Castle Huntly, as it would be taking a risk if the prisoner said, "I don't want to be here." As soon as he got there, he would say, "I'm going to run away." The Prison Service would have to say, "Okay, you are security category B or C and you are returned to Glasgow or Edinburgh or wherever, close to your home."

Trying to force a prisoner to be somewhere where he does not want to be, without security, runs an extreme risk. If the money has to be spent on security, that negates the point of an open prison. The Prison Service cannot take the risk that a prisoner will run away from an open prison if he does not want to be there. If he runs away, will he steal a car? Will he break into a house to acquire money to pay for his bus fare or a train ticket? The Prison Service has to be conscious of those difficulties when it says to a prisoner, "You're a D cat. You're serving only a short sentence. Go to Dundee." That is particularly the case if the prisoner feels that there are compelling reasons for staying locally.

Clive Fairweather suggested that long-term prisoners ended up in open prisons, so why did you give a short-term example?

Castle Huntly and Noranside have a number of short-term prisoners.

Who are those people? I understood you to say that they are not people who would be open to alternatives to custody. That is the key point. If we embark on alternatives to custody, where will the impact on the sheer number of spaces in prisons be? Where will there be empty cells as a result of alternatives to custody?

I would expect the greatest impact to be on local prisons. Typically, fine defaulters end up in local prisons and serve 10, 14 or 20 days. By the time they are assessed, sending them to Castle Huntly is not an option. It is interesting to note that the latest prison statistics show a 22 per cent drop in the number of fine defaulters received into prisons. Such a drop would be most keenly felt—or rather, not felt—by local prisons. People get lifted in Glasgow or Edinburgh and typically go to Barlinnie or Edinburgh prison. Those people would not feature.

Are there any other questions? If not, I thank the witnesses again for coming today. As I indicated at the beginning, we will probably now move towards producing a report on the work that we have done so far before tackling other aspects of prisons. I anticipate that we will have you back again, Mr Fairweather, and I hope that that will not be too onerous. I am sorry for the delay this morning—our time scale slipped. [Interruption.] If people are wondering what the noise is outside, there is a farmers demonstration.