Item 1 is women's offending. The main purpose of the item is to report on our visit to Cornton Vale prison. Members have copies of a comprehensive report that the clerks have prepared on the visits to different areas of the prison by two groups of members of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee. Members may add to the report if they wish. You may wish to make general comments on how you felt about the visit, following which we must decide whether to end the matter there or to pursue one of the options in the note from the clerk. Do members have general comments on the visit, before we address the report?
Having seen Cornton Vale before Clive Fairweather's initial inspection, I think that the difference now is like night and day. I am sure that it was obvious to people who were seeing the prison for the first time that the difference between it now and what it was like in the past was enormous. There has been a tangible change. It has been improved vastly from the first time that I saw it.
The visit to Cornton Vale was my first visit to a prison and I was not sure what to expect. However, I recognise what Lyndsay McIntosh alluded to in that the prison has improved greatly from what one might have expected a few years ago. It was a humane place. However, I am concerned that it is not the most appropriate place for some of the women there. That view does not relate specifically to Cornton Vale, but at some stage we need to consider why women are sent to prison when that is not the most appropriate place for them to be sent. What options are available to women who get into difficulties with their lifestyle? Perhaps we could deal with such matters at a future date.
My feelings are similar to those of Mary Mulligan. In evidence at a previous meeting, the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments said that someone has to decide whether we want a rehabilitation centre or a prison. The statistics that we were given showed that 90 per cent of women in prison have a drug addiction problem and 50 per cent are in prison for petty crime, so that comment rings true in respect of whether we wish prison to remain as it is. Cornton Vale has a huge job to undertake with women with a drug addiction problem. I have a particular suggestion to make, but I shall wait to hear what other members have to say first.
I apologise for being late.
That is an important point. The reason why the number of male officers is high at the moment is that officers have been redeployed following the closure of three prisons. The position might settle a bit, but Christine Grahame's point is well made. We should perhaps include it in the report.
I have numbered the options 1, 2 and 3—in reverse order to that given in the paper. My first choice is identifying any specific issues where the Executive might be questioned on current policy—and then questioning them. Then we could move on to No 2—identifying a smaller number of specific issues on which further work should be done. We have to consider our work load. If we take things too broadly, we will dissipate our energies. It would therefore be useful to ask the Executive about specific things, get a response and then move on to investigate the issues and see whether some changes can be implemented in this parliamentary session. One would hope that that would be a step forward in the consideration of women's offending and in penal attitudes to women offenders.
My view is similar to Christine Grahame's. Although we may want to undertake a wide-ranging inquiry, it would have to concentrate on issues such as alternatives to custody. If, as Mary Mulligan suggested, we wish to consider why women are in jail and explore the alternatives, we must be sure that there is something in its place. Such an inquiry would take an enormous amount of time. Although I am happy to undertake such an inquiry, what we are already doing prevents us from doing so. For example, it will take about a year to complete our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which we were working on this morning. Mary Mulligan's suggestion is worthy of a main issue inquiry. If we can undertake smaller tasks in between, that is fine, but I would not want to give that inquiry anything less than our full attention at an appropriate time.
I have taken both those views on board. Christine Grahame's proposal was the third option from the clerk's paper, which is that of identifying specific issues about which the Executive might be questioned on current policy. We have not examined in any detail what the Executive has in mind for halfway houses. A ministerial committee has been set up, but we do not know much about it. We could ask the minister to update us on that committee's work before we decide whether the imprisonment of women should be the focus of an inquiry. That might cover the third option.
A couple of other questions spring to mind. It would be useful at another meeting to ask why more women are being imprisoned when the target was to have fewer women in prison. It was a simple policy decision. Furthermore, the governor of Cornton Vale—a very experienced lady—reckoned that it is not the best way forward to have male prison officers working in female prisons. What will be done about that? Will prison closures have an impact on the situation? Will more men be transferred to work at Cornton Vale? We may be able to alter certain matters in two years. We may achieve a momentum when more changes are made in women's prisons without our having to undertake such matters through the committee. Let us start pushing matters forward.
I am happy for members to pick up such proposals. We presently have under way issues concerning Cornton Vale women's prison and what the future might hold. We may examine the alternatives. As Lyndsay McIntosh said, an inquiry into women being sent to prison would be much more work, because we would have to consider all the evidence from community service schemes and so on. We shall have to rule out such an inquiry at the moment because of our work load.
Would not that come under the heading of why more women are being imprisoned? If the level of fines were raised and certain matters were no longer a criminal offence, women would be taken out of the criminal justice system. The Executive could undertake such a simple policy. Women are in prison for their failure to pay fairly small fines. We must also consider remand procedure. Why are more women in prison when the Executive's target was to reduce the number of women sent to prison? Why has that policy not worked? What will the Executive do about it? What policies will it introduce to change the situation, such as raising the fines level? I accept that that is an alternative to custody, but the Executive could deal with specific matters quite quickly.
At our visit to Cornton Vale, Mary Mulligan and I were advised of the number of people who were making good progress when they left prison, but who had been picked up on old warrants and were sent back to prison. Can not we get round that problem?
I am happy to concentrate on any of the issues suggested by Mary Mulligan and Christine Grahame. We just need to be clear about which road we want to go down. Do members consider it appropriate to ask the minister what the ministerial group is doing before we decide on the focus of our discussions?
In fairness to the minister, we should make a list of questions so that he knows our agenda.
I will summarise the issues that are on the list. One question is why we are imprisoning so many women. We know that the number of women prisoners is at an all-time high. There are issues to do with Cornton Vale itself, and we might wish to consider further the ratio of male officers to female officers.
Does the Executive consider it appropriate that the number of male prison officers is being increased, as opposed to what would be a better practice—to have more female officers? What are the reasons for that?
We can examine that specific staffing issue.
There is also the age profile of prisoners to consider.
Just a minute—we can also consider the alternatives to custody and the announcement on halfway houses. We have four matters to consider.
Sorry, convener. I noticed something about the age profile, on reading page 2 of the paper. I got an impression that a number of younger women are being imprisoned. There is an indication that there would be scope for alternatives to prison in relation to short sentences. Does the Executive have the information that will inform its decisions on alternatives to custodial sentences?
So—we want to be asking questions about sentencing.
I want to ask about the age profile and about average sentences.
We will add to our list the age profile of women offenders and length of sentences. The point has been made that it is very difficult to do any kind of rehabilitation work when some sentences are so short. Christine Grahame pointed out that the governor of Cornton Vale has indicated that each time she sees one of the large number of repeat offenders coming back to the prison, that person is in worse condition than when she left.
I would like to make one last point, convener, which would follow the matter right through. What is the Executive's current policy on support for discharged prisoners? The evidence that we got from Turnaround and Routes Out of Prostitution is that the measures that they can provide are but a drop in the bucket. As the governor of Cornton Vale said, to deal with the situation there would need to be somebody meeting every woman who was discharged from prison. That is obviously not practical, but it appears that, once women are out, they just end up back in the general domestic situations and environments that catapulted them into prison or led to their being there in the first place. It is important, as Lyndsay McIntosh said, to break that revolving-door cycle.
That is a good point. I think it was Margo MacDonald who asked the witnesses about what happens when Turnaround, for example, must service a much bigger population. It is a small organisation. It can provide a personal service, but can it do so for a bigger population?
The witnesses said that it could not.
That is right.
Yes—that is fine.
We will give advance notice to the ministerial team on the questions that we want to ask them. We will look for a slot for that—after the recess—and we will need to decide the committee's specific focus.
Considering the amount of information that we had to take in on the day, I think that the report is remarkably good.
I am sorry if I have missed this, but are my comments about the degenerating condition of the women as they come in, and about the fact that they cannot get any worse, included? The problem is outside and the prison must pick up the fallout. Some of the women are in a far worse state outside the prison and it is worth picking up on that. They are now tending to serve three or four years, and that is also worth noting.
It would be useful to have a "Women's Health" section, separate from the one on the health centre. That would pick up the evidence that was given to us about the deterioration of women's health, particularly the evidence about repeat offenders coming back into prison and their health being worse than when they left. It would also pick up on the evidence that the governor of Cornton Vale gave that many women were having medical attention for the first time, including pregnant women who had never attended any antenatal classes. That would give a general picture of the situation at Cornton Vale and a picture of the importance of the health centre.
Do we want to mention the woman who was not suitable for Cornton Vale? She was in a terrible state. She was described to us as being covered in body lice.
That is in the report.
I am glad that that is in the report. It is a sad reflection of the facilities that are available to people who have fallen out of every loop that exists.
The case is referred to on page 3, which states:
Is it fair to include in the report the words "but, however, sheriffs may have no option"—we may not wish to do so—and the comment that the convener made that putting the woman in Cornton Vale at least ensured that she would get immediate medical assistance? I ask for that to be included to ensure that blame is not laid on the sheriff for putting that woman into Cornton Vale. When faced with such a situation, how can a sheriff best deal with the person? The sheriff might have bent the rules, but it was in that woman's interest to have immediate medical attention. Perhaps we should put that in the report.
I will put that point to the committee. I, too, wonder whether it is in the minds of sheriffs when passing sentence that, in sending a woman to prison, she might at least get the attention that she needs. Are members happy to include that in the report?
Between the two groups, we had quite a comprehensive look at Cornton Vale. The group that I was with—which went on Friday 25 May—did not see the laundry, but the second group was able to see it.
It was a big washing machine.
Christine Grahame, Michael Matheson and I also managed to speak to quite a few prisoners. That gave us a useful perspective. Prisoners raised some issues, as they always do. It might be important to say in the report that we conversed with prisoners.
We went to one of the work areas where prisoners were packing tea and sugar. We had the opportunity to speak with prisoners there.
We also visited the crafts area.
That was great.
The crafts area is about offering skills to the women. We should include in the report something about the education that goes on—not school education, but education for life.
Working in the crafts area teaches the prisoners skills and gives them an interest.
I have other concerns about that. There were women there who are awaiting deportation and I wonder whether that is appropriate. Members may remember the table at which the women who were awaiting deportation sat. There was a different atmosphere—obviously—at that table from the atmosphere at the other tables. It is fair to say that the remand area, which had a table with deportees, was the most volatile area that we visited.
I put that point to members.
Is that matter not being addressed? Is it not the case that those who are awaiting deportation will be accommodated elsewhere anyway?
They were to be deported. They were not awaiting finalisation.
Are they not being moved somewhere else anyway, out of the prison?
I hope so.
That was not conveyed to us at the time.
We should include in the report the fact that we knew that there were asylum seekers in prison. I was unaware of that until three weeks ago, when I dealt with a constituency case. Mary Mulligan might be right that there is provision for them already, but we should include that point in the report and seek clarification on it.
The fact that those women were mixed in with remand prisoners—
Cannot we just demand that folk should not be sent to Cornton Vale because they are economic refugees?
We can make the point that the prison is unsuitable accommodation. If there is a response, that will be clarified.
I am sorry, convener. Can I take you back? Mary Mulligan raised the issue of a policy change. Can we ask the minister whether there is to be a policy change, so that deportees are not detained at Cornton Vale?
The deportees did not commit a criminal offence while they were here; their offence is that they entered the country illegally. Is that right?
Yes, they are people—
They are people whose cases have been—
Can we have some order? We are happy to include it in the report that we do not think that Cornton Vale is suitable accommodation for deportees. That is as much information as we were officially given at Cornton Vale. It is fair to put that point to the Deputy Minister for Justice in order to get clarification, which is the point that Mary Mulligan made. Let us get on the record what is now to happen to asylum seekers.