I welcome Ian Gunn and Stuart Campbell from HM Prison Peterhead: one is programmes manager and the other is the new governor. I also welcome Derek Gunn, who is adviser to the operations directors of the Scottish Prison Service. We are to have a short opening statement from Ian Gunn, whom I invite to proceed.
I wish to confirm that it is Stuart Campbell who is a programmes manager at Peterhead.
I beg your pardon.
He has been at Peterhead for 14 years. He is involved in the management and delivery of the STOP programme, in which I know the committee is particularly interested. Derek Gunn is an adviser to the operations directors at SPS headquarters. He will assist me with any questions that I feel he will be able to help with.
I open the discussion to questions from members. I will do Stewart Stevenson the courtesy of allowing him to ask the first questions, as he has been pursuing the issue of Peterhead prison quite vigorously.
Thank you, convener. It is nice to see Ian Gunn again. I am glad to hear that your first six weeks have shown you that the prison is in good heart as far as its programmes are concerned; indeed, you mentioned the many awards that the prison staff have received for their work. Your predecessor, Bill Rattray, commissioned a report from Professor Bill Marshall on the prison's work, in which the observation is made that Peterhead is one of the top three prisons of its type in the world. After your first six weeks and from what you have learned about the prison, are you happy to associate yourself with that remark?
As I am not as experienced as Professor Marshall in this field, I find it difficult to comment on that point. However, from what I have seen, the delivery of programmes and the staff's support for those programmes are clearly excellent.
It is flattering that someone such as Professor Bill Marshall has commented on the work that goes on in Peterhead. As a member of the programmes team, I can say that we have always striven to work to the best of our abilities. It is always poignant to remember that the work of the SPS seeks to ensure that there are no victims in future.
An attribute of Peterhead that is not shared by any other establishment in the Prison Service is that it is a dedicated and discrete unit for dealing with sex offenders. Several experts have expressed the opinion that there is particular value in physically segregating sex offenders in a separate unit away from other offenders to ensure a climate in which they can safely receive treatment and address their offending behaviour. After your six weeks' experience, have you formed a view about the value of segregating sex offenders from the general prison population? Stuart Campbell might also comment on that point.
After eight years in the Prison Service, I feel that there is clearly a need to segregate certain types of offenders, given the attitude of prisoners and the constant threat of violence towards sex offenders. For the first time in my career, I have seen sex offenders in a local prison acting as normal, mainstream prisoners.
In 1993, when the programme first began, Peterhead was not just an exclusive site for sex offenders; it contained different prisoner groups. At the time, we were concerned that other prisoners would derail the process, as happened on some occasions. As a result, steps were taken in 1993 to turn Peterhead into an establishment with a sex offender population, which shows that the SPS was driven towards meeting that need for that prisoner group.
I have Bill Marshall's report on the STOP programme, which is dated 24 July 2000. A crucial concern is that, if the sex offenders programme was scattered elsewhere, its excellence would be lost. We are talking about world-class delivery, for which I praise the prison.
Yes. I agree with them.
What would your concern be if the prison was closed and sex offenders programmes were dissipated elsewhere within the Prison Service?
Can I answer that?
I would like both of you to answer. I would like Mr Campbell to speak from his experience.
We must bear in mind the fact that the programme at Peterhead did not happen overnight. It has taken seven years to build to where we are now. Huge emphasis has been placed on the total culture, to create a supportive environment for working with sex offenders. Investment has been made in staff training and development. Over the years, we have built up a good reputation among staff and prisoners. Regardless of whether the estates review decides that the work done at Peterhead prison should move elsewhere, that work will and must continue. It is about protection of the public and the prevention of crime.
I read that Clive Fairweather said that to recreate the status that the programme has now reached would take four or five years if it was scattered elsewhere. Given your comment that it took a long time to achieve that status, would you agree with what he said?
I repeat what I said earlier: it has taken us seven years to build to where we are now.
So you agree.
Yes.
Whatever happens with the estates review, everyone agrees—all the staff at Peterhead would agree—that the buildings that are in use have a limited life, so there will be a need to stop using those buildings. There will be disruption of some kind when that happens. The prison will retain its role in its existing buildings until new buildings are available, so the work will carry on for some time. It is a question of the estates review deciding where that work will carry on.
I will add a comment, for the committee's information, on acknowledging the idea of a dedicated sex offender facility. It is important to recognise that we are obliged to deliver sex offender programmes in other places because we cannot, for example, move young offenders up to Peterhead. It is important that we want to use all the benefits of a well-recognised programme. Regardless of how good Peterhead is, we must learn the lessons from it and apply them in other places.
With respect, I do not think that that is the issue. We are aware that there are other sex offender programmes elsewhere. This is a model that, because it is self-contained and is only for sex offenders, has reached the parts that other programmes did not reach. We are being informed that it would be a great loss, not only to the Prison Service but to society at large, if it were dissipated throughout the service. The prison buildings are a separate matter from the programme.
If Peterhead must be closed down—you say that the buildings are in such a state that the programme cannot continue—and the programme must move, should it go to a new building in Peterhead or should it be moved to elsewhere in Scotland? I presume that the issue is whether the personnel who deliver the programme could leave their homes—which are, I presume in Peterhead—and move elsewhere.
If a decision was made to close Peterhead, to build another prison elsewhere to contain long-term sex offenders—or perhaps all sex offenders—and to continue with the STOP 2000 programme or whatever programme is being delivered at that time, I am absolutely sure that staff who work with sex offenders at Peterhead who wished to move to continue that work would be given the opportunity to do so.
That is the big question that hangs over the programme. In my view, the staff are crucial to its delivery—not the building. We do not want to lose their skills.
That is right.
Does the governor accept that Peterhead is extremely important to the Scottish Prison Service as a whole and that a prison on that site is necessary—especially as it is not possible to know what prison numbers will be in future?
Clearly, Peterhead has an important role to play right now. It has 300 long-term male sex offenders and it would take a long time—several years—to replace that capacity. It is not for me to comment directly on whether, in the event of a new build taking place, that build should be at Peterhead or elsewhere. That is a matter for the estates review.
I was involved in the decision to set up the sex offenders unit. Does your evidence suggest that the unit is a well-proven success and that it has reduced the rate of reoffending? From what you have said, I think that that is the case.
Yes. I would like to ask Stuart Campbell to comment on reoffending.
In April this year we put together a set of statistics for the First Minister's visit to Peterhead. Since the programme commenced in 1993, it has had a total of 244 participants. One hundred and sixty-two of those prisoners have been liberated, 69 are still in custody, 173 prisoners completed the programme and 71 failed to finish it. Six have been reconvicted of a sexual offence and four have been recalled because of a breach of licence conditions.
Is not that a considerable improvement on the previous situation?
I cannot comment on the previous situation, because I do not have the figures to hand. If we could get those figures, we could sort that out.
My understanding is that there has been a marked improvement.
Yes.
However, you are not in a position to deny that.
No.
What has happened to the building at Peterhead in which the special unit used to be?
The buildings of Peterhead special unit still exist, but they have been mothballed and are not used to house prisoners.
Is it important to put right the shortfall of 20 officers in the operations group?
Yes. There is a shortfall and a recruitment campaign was held a couple of months ago. It has not been easy to attract operations officers to Peterhead. All potential staff are asked to express a preference about where they would like to work. Very few have expressed a preference to come to Peterhead and I imagine that that is partly because of uncertainty about the future of the prison.
Is the delay over the estates review causing a loss of staff morale?
I do not think that it is a question of morale. Morale is a much-misunderstood word. At Peterhead, I see staff members who work very well together as a team to support the work that is being done with long-term sex offenders. However, members of staff will be concerned about their families. They see news reports, they read the papers and their children are asked questions at school. They want a decision. Clearly, each staff member will have a different preference about what that decision should be. The lack of a decision is draining for staff and I do not think that it has affected morale, but is of concern. The sooner a decision is made, the better.
I also wanted to ask about the electronic unlocking system, which I understand would help with individuals going to the toilet at night. At present, you do not have that system.
No. In the chief inspector's report, I mention a method of allowing access to sanitation during the night. I believe that a cost was put on that, although I do not know where it came from. Whether or not we have such a system in place, it would not help the long-term future of the building. The building will not be adequate for its purpose for much longer.
A figure was quoted for a system and, like Ian Gunn, I do not know where it came from. The figure is not really accurate because installing night-time sanitation that has electronic unlocking would be short-term expenditure and would not prolong the life of the buildings. Glenochil has that kind of system, as members who have visited it might know. It would not be desirable to install such a system in buildings that will not exist for much longer.
May I request, through the convener, that information be sent to the committee on the reduction in reoffending?
Yes. Comparisons with other institutions and other types of offences would also be interesting.
This question might be out of bounds. If we set aside the issue of the electronic unlocking system, there seem to be three options. The first is to rebuild the prison on its present site. The second is to rebuild it nearby so that the staff are kept together and do not have the problem of moving. The third is to rebuild the prison in a totally different part of Scotland, which might mean that you would lose some staff. Do any of the witnesses have any preferences from among those three options?
That is a difficult question to answer. We will have to wait for the estates review to see what decisions are taken. As I said, each member of staff at Peterhead has their own view. Some staff members might be close to retirement and want the prison to remain open for as long as they must continue to work. Other staff members are prepared to move anywhere to carry on the work that they are doing with prisoners and some people would prefer to stay in the north-east because of family commitments. Without knowing what will be in the estates review, it is difficult to express a preference. We do not know at this stage.
No decisions have been made, so we can only speculate. However, we should keep in mind the assurances that our chief executive, Tony Cameron, repeated recently to the Justice 1 Committee. Those assurances were on the security of jobs for all staff. However, if staff were prepared to move, they would be moved and if a move were to take place, it would take place over time.
As I understand it, the Victorians liked their prisons to be a long way away, where they were out of sight. A more modern view is that it is better to site many prisons nearer the prisoners' families to allow the families to visit. Are sex offenders less likely to receive visits from families? If so, is that a stronger argument for having a slightly more remote location for such a prison, rather than siting it in the central belt?
As a large percentage of prisoners have offended against family members—Stuart Campbell has just reminded me that the figure is 45 per cent—they would probably not have that family contact. There is a system in the SPS that allows prisoners to move from one prison to another to receive visits. They can also save up their visits, which means that a prisoner from Dumfries or Inverness can spend a month at the prison in those places. There are conflicting views about whether it is good to keep sex offenders in any particular place; however, visits are probably more of an issue for sex offenders who have not offended against their own family than for those who have.
I add only that, in a recent survey, 12 per cent of prisoners at Peterhead said that they were unhappy with visiting arrangements; the rest were quite satisfied with the current system.
On a point of clarification, Derek Gunn mentioned a "dedicated sex offenders facility". Did you mean a dedicated sex offenders prison, or a facility that is attached to other prisons?
I am not sure that there is a simple answer—
You said it; that is why I am asking you about it.
I would refer to Peterhead at the moment as a "dedicated sex offender facility".
Yes, but what would such a facility mean in future? Would it mean Peterhead prison by another name, either in Peterhead or elsewhere, or would it mean a unit for sex offenders attached to another prison?
You are asking me to prejudge the estates review, which I cannot do.
No, I am asking you what "dedicated sex offender facility" means.
I would mean by that a facility that is designed to suit that situation. For example, visiting arrangements could be made if there were a compound that was completely separate from the rest of the prison. So, yes, such a facility could be—
Attached to another prison.
It could be part of another prison or it could be a separate prison.
That is where I have a problem. I am not the expert here—I defer to Mr Campbell and, to some extent, Ian Gunn in that respect. Everything I have read about Peterhead suggests that the key to the sex offenders unit's success is the fact that it is contained within the prison and has evolved a special environment to deal with sex offenders. An attempt to recreate such an environment in a unit that was attached to another prison would be less successful for a variety of reasons, including the way in which the programme would be implemented and how the prisoners would feel. From my reading of the reports, it seems that the trick to making the programmes work—if the word "trick" is not too frivolous—is the way in which the prisoners respond to such an environment. That is why I am concerned about the use of the word "facility". That was not included in Donald Gorrie's list of options.
I am sure—well, I am not sure, but I will make a very educated guess that any decision on the estates review will protect continuing work with sex offenders. I cannot envisage a decision being made not to support the continuation of that programme, whether at Peterhead in its existing buildings until a new building is finished, or phased from the old buildings to new buildings. I do not think that a decision would be made that would impact on the programme. It is most important that we continue to work with sex offenders.
I return to where I began: a total culture and a supportive environment are the key elements. We are not talking just about one programme. The sex offenders programme is but one of a raft of programmes that are available at a facility such as Peterhead. Built into that programme are specialist staff, who can challenge daily any comments that an offender makes or any matter relating to offending behaviour that needs to be examined and addressed. I hope that, when a decision is made, we can put the appropriate staff skills in place to ensure that the work continues. The work is based on protecting the public for the future.
So a facility attached to another prison would not deliver what Peterhead is delivering now. That is my understanding of what you say. Is that correct?
Peterhead is a totally unusual facility. It is the only such facility in Scotland that has a total culture in which offenders can move about freely.
Would that total culture not exist in the facility if it was attached to another prison?
No.
Thank you. Do you feel the same, Mr Gunn?
The model that we have works. If we are going to change that model, we will have to consider carefully what a different model would look like. As I said, my experience of working in local prisons before I moved to Peterhead is that sex offenders do not feel safe and secure and do not become involved in much activity unless they are kept together. Any different model that we might support in future would need to be considered very carefully to ensure that we do not lose prisoners' confidence in becoming involved in programme activity.
I will ask a couple of questions about the prison in the community. I understand that the majority of the uniformed staff who work in Peterhead prison travel to the prison wearing their uniforms and that that is by no means the norm elsewhere. What do you think that tells us about the attitude of the general population in the Peterhead area to the people who work in the prison?
I must admit that, when I read that, it was the first time that I had ever heard it. If I think back to when I worked in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, I do not remember that that was a particularly big issue in those cities.
I have lived in Peterhead for the past 14 years. Over the years, the prison's staff have built up a very good relationship with the Peterhead public, who know exactly what our work is about. We have spent much time in the community giving presentations and explaining what our work is about. We explain that it is about trying to protect the public in future. We also explain the positive aspects of having 300 sex offenders living in the confines of Peterhead prison. We are there to support the community as well.
The economic multiplier that I have been given for the value of the prison in the community is about £25 million a year. That is just one facet of the prison's relationship with the community. Is it fair to say that, when the idea was first mooted of sex offenders coming in large numbers to Peterhead, there was considerable disquiet in the community? Is it also fair to say that, just as it has taken many years to build up the skills and resources in the prison staff to deal with such prisoners, it has also taken considerable work, investment and time to arrive at the position in which the local community is comfortable about having such a facility in its midst?
I do not think that I am able to answer that question. I ask Stuart Campbell to answer it for me.
It is clear that what Stewart Stevenson says is correct. Over the years, we have built up a very good relationship with the Peterhead public.
Do you therefore agree that among the challenges, if the facility were to be relocated in another community, would be—I say this kindly—the prejudices, discomfort and lack of knowledge in that community, and the concerns that that community would have about sex offenders being located in a facility within its boundaries, however secure you were able to demonstrate that facility to be?
Again, I cannot answer that because I have never lived anywhere where a prison will be sited.
It would be hard, but that is speculation. We managed in Peterhead.
Have you surveyed local attitudes to the prison?
I cannot give an informed answer to that and I do not know whether Stuart Campbell can. We have probably surveyed local attitudes, but I am not sure.
Did you survey local attitudes in connection with a proposal, which I understand has not yet proceeded, to take pre-release prisoners into the community on supervised programmes?
I am aware that there was a plan to do that, although I do not know the full details.
I want to ask about Professor Marshall's report on Peterhead prison's sexual offender programme, which was commissioned by the previous governor, and the community work programme—has that been implemented?
No.
Professor Marshall's report says:
I cannot comment directly on that. I read the document once.
The report is interesting and was commissioned by the previous governor to find out how things are going and about the community-based programme. I want to pick up on what my colleague said. It is human nature that people do not want a sex offenders institution near them, yet Peterhead has somehow broken the blacklisting—if I may put it that way—and has succeeded all round with sex offenders, its staff, programmes and most important, with the community and recidivism. It seems to me that we should not dismantle that, but perhaps I am naive. Mr Campbell, would you comment on the 98 per cent response rate? Do you know about it?
I know of the report, but I am not sure of its intricacies and ins and outs. An important part of working with sex offenders is that we start to build in prevention of relapse work where they can be put into the community to be tested.
Why was the programme stopped? Why did a head office directive shut it down? I am sorry that I have only one copy of the report, but I received it only today. The report is dated 24 July 2000, which is more than a year ago. Would you comment, Mr Gunn?
Sorry, I cannot.
Perhaps we should have an answer. The committee would like to know why the community intermediate step did not proceed.
I do not know the reasons, but many prisoners who are released from Peterhead are not released into the local community. There is an issue about their being moved back to jails that are nearer to where they will live.
The report mentions
No. We will get information for the committee.
We would be happier to give the information at a future date. Further comment now would be speculative.
That would not be a problem.
Perhaps the prisoners who were selected were suitable to go to open prisons, or there were other reasons. We would prefer to give the information at a later date rather than to speculate.
I want to clarify what is important and what is not so important. You said that you thought that it would be best to have a dedicated prison for the treatment of sex offenders. I would like you to compare what you are doing with what happens in Barlinnie, where there is a unit that deals with short-term offenders. Saying that you want to have a prison dedicated to sex offenders might denigrate what Barlinnie is doing.
You will be speaking to Mr McKinlay from Barlinnie and he will have the answers. Barlinnie has short-term prisoners and long-term prisoners waiting to move on to other prisons. The estates review may address whether a new build at Peterhead would contain more than a sex offender population. Whatever model is built, we will have to be careful to protect the integrity of the programme that we deliver.
I agree with that. It is for the estates review to decide on the best course of action.
Presumably, the programme can be delivered in the same building that other prisoners are in if there is total separation.
I go back to total culture. The Peterhead experience is a total culture that seems to work better because we have a population composed only of sex offenders.
Mr Gunn, I will put this question to you, not to insult you, but to give you an opportunity to respond to something that was said by Derek Turner of the Prison Officers Association Scotland. It has been in the press and commented on previously and I am sure you have read it. I will also put it to the governor of Barlinnie. Derek Turner said that your appointment as governor was
I do not know the source of that information. It does not match anything that has ever been said to me. I was assigned to the post of governor of Peterhead prison. I was delighted to accept that assignment. On several occasions, I had said to my line manager that, as part of my career development, I would like the opportunity to be governor of Peterhead prison. I was given that opportunity. At no time was it ever indicated to me that the reason I was going there was because I was less argumentative. If you talk to my wife, she will tell you that I am extremely argumentative, at times. I do not think that that comment has any substance whatsoever.
So you are not a soft touch.
I do not think so.
Thank you, gentlemen. The committee has arranged to visit Peterhead on 10 December. As I come out of plaster on 12 December—there is a plaster cast under the table—would you arrange another date with the clerks and members of the committee? The visit could still be before the recess but at a time when I could attend, as I would be pleased to see your programme. Would that be convenient?
That would be no problem. I look forward to seeing you.
I welcome Bill McKinlay, the governor of HM Prison Barlinnie, and George Peden, the admissions and induction manager of Barlinnie. We still have Mr Gunn with us—he seems to have a starring role this afternoon. I have been to Barlinnie, as have Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Maureen Macmillan, so we have some knowledge of the layout of some of the halls. I believe that you wish to make an opening statement.
Yes, I will make a short statement. I draw members' attention to my brief submission of 13 November. Primarily, I highlight issues about the estate, overcrowding, regime provision—including details of programmes—and the way in which Barlinnie staff deliver consistently when faced with various demands in those areas daily. I reiterate that Barlinnie is a busy and important establishment within which integral sanitation is an important issue. It would be a tremendous benefit to Barlinnie if that problem could be solved, because it detracts from many of the things that we are trying to do in Barlinnie. I am not here to defend slopping out in any way.
Thank you. Does anyone wish to start?
I mention an interest, because Barlinnie provided me with much of my bread-and-butter employment when I was a young advocate. I wish to ask about slopping out. How great is the problem? How many places do you need to renovate to eliminate it once and for all?
Approximately 950 places have to slop out at the moment. We have space for 130 with integral sanitation from the renovation of D hall. From March next year, as I said, B hall will be renovated to give a further 170 places, which could be doubled up in certain instances to give about 250 places. So at the moment, the number of places with integral sanitation is quite limited. Over time, the staff are trying to reduce the impact of slopping out through having screens in rooms, kits and so forth, but I am not here to condone or defend slopping out. It is still a significant problem in Barlinnie.
If slopping out were completely phased out, would fewer prison officers have to be on duty during the night?
Less time would be utilised in supervising that activity. Whether we could divert staff into other programmes or areas is another matter. It would certainly have an impact on the time that is spent supervising that activity.
How do you deal with the problem of overcrowding? Overcrowding to the extent of 32 per cent was mentioned. Do you double up prisoners in cells?
We have no limit on our capacity, but around 1,230 prisoners is the maximum. We deal with overcrowding by managing the space that is available in terms of who we take in and where we locate them.
I understand that there is a problem with the access of young remands to education facilities. Is that being addressed?
There was an initial problem. The young remands tried to take the initial hall apart so we had to relocate them in stronger facilities in the renovated hall. In doing so we lost the educational facilities, so we have put in place portable accommodation, which is a very good facility. The young remands have access to education daily.
I noticed that 15 of your 118 operational staff and three of the 306 residential staff have resigned. Are you confident that you can recruit the necessary number of staff?
Yes. From Monday we are 12 residential staff over and one operational staff member down. We are receiving recruits. The figures are based on those members of staff who have left for alternative employment; they do not include those who have been medically retired or dismissed and those who have left for other reasons. We are now just about up to complement.
Will you kindly update us on what has happened to the special unit at Barlinnie?
A working party review in 1994 recommended that the unit close and the unit in effect closed. It is planned that the unit will be used for the introduction of 12 care workers and two care managers under the drug action team funding for dealing with people with dependencies.
I want to follow up on the discussion that we had with the Peterhead governor and others by asking about the sex offenders unit in Barlinnie and the work that it does. Is the programme based on the programme that is used at Peterhead? How short are the stays in the short-stay unit? How do you feel about having a sex offenders unit inside a mainstream prison? Do you think that it works?
I had a feeling that that would come up. Fifty-four sex offenders are held in Barlinnie. They are held separately from the remainder of the population. Programmes and education operate separately for them. Three members of staff are trained to deliver the STOP 2000 programme to the same criteria. The training course is accredited and the trainers hold certificates. I ask George Peden to give the committee a breakdown of the types of prisoners that are involved in the programme; there was a slight inaccuracy in something that was said earlier.
In the STOP 2000 programme at Barlinnie there were eight completions last year and seven are in progress at the moment. There is a mixture of short-term prisoners—prisoners doing less than four years—and long-term prisoners who have been transferred in from other establishments.
You have long-term prisoners at Barlinnie.
Long-term prisoners are transferred in to do the STOP 2000 programme. Approximately 14 long-term prisoners are awaiting allocation to Peterhead.
Do they come to you and then go on to Peterhead?
That is correct.
Do you find it difficult to offer the programme at Barlinnie? Is the atmosphere not conducive to that? As was said, Peterhead is a dedicated prison and that is thought to create a better atmosphere.
The programme is delivered in a fully relaxed manner, but that is down to the location of the programme at Barlinnie. The programme is run in what is called Letham hall, away from the main part of the prison. Letham hall is shared with high-dependency unit prisoners, but they are kept separate at all times. The mixture of prisoners at Letham hall allows the sex offenders to go about their daily business.
Prior to coming to Barlinnie, I was the governor of Shotts for five and a half years. Shotts is a maximum-security prison. During my time at Shotts, the STOP 2000 programme was run in a vulnerable unit that held 117 vulnerable prisoners including approximately 60 sex offenders. As was mentioned, the problem with the STOP 2000 programme concerns dedication and the influence of others. For the programme to work, people have to be protected—they have to be kept separate. The programme is resource intensive. However, if staff who worked at Shotts at that time were asked about the programme, they would say that prisoners did equally well in it as they did in programmes delivered at Peterhead. That said, it was more difficult to manage the STOP 2000 programme.
What about the local population's perception of the prison? Did they know that there were sex offenders at the prison?
I cannot comment other than to say that records exist, from 1987, about the positioning of Shotts prison beside Shotts village. Pressure groups were set up at that time. The prison is now accepted as part of the community and the community is involved with the prison. A prison is not what people want on their doorstep. That is my personal view.
From what you said, if a prison is accepted within its community, as seems to be the case with Peterhead, that is good.
If an opportunity arose to place a prison in a community that would accept it, that would be fine. However, it takes only one incident to occur for that to change.
I want to follow up on what was said about the STOP 2000 programme. You think it works, but you are saying that you pretty much run a prison within a prison.
Yes.
Did you hear the evidence of the previous witnesses?
Yes.
In Professor Marshall's report, which was commissioned by a previous Peterhead governor, the professor wrote:
Professor Marshall has visited only two prisons that are dedicated to the treatment of sex offenders. As the convener indicated, other prisons take a mix of prisoners and different regimes have to be run in them. I am not in a position to say what is successful. The comment is a professional comment, but I have to say that the same accreditation and certification exists in the central belt as exists in the north-east of Scotland. If you are asking whether people are more competent in one part of the country, I would have to say that that is not the case—a standard applies. If you are asking about the benefits of a dedicated system, I would say that I prefer vulnerable prisoners and sex offenders to be in separate units.
Would it be better if there was a dedicated prison in Scotland?
I cannot judge the outcome of the estates review—
I am not interested in the estates review; I am asking for your experience as a prison governor. Let us forget the estates review. It will be a long time in the post.
From a management perspective, the answer is yes.
So, from a management perspective, it is better. From what you have said, it is difficult to manage the two different regimes.
I want to explore the impact of being 32 per cent over capacity. To what degree is the time that staff work related to the number of prisoners? Is the number of prisoners irrelevant, to an extent? Is it instead a question of the number of cells and dining halls and so on?
I have already alluded to the fact that a good proportion—or at least a certain proportion—of staff time is spent supervising slopping out. That includes dealing with overcrowding.
It says 24,000 in your submission.
Sorry. There have been 24,000 movements in and out this year alone and there were 48,000 last year. We are concentrating on processing. I commend staff for the work that has been undertaken, some of which has been at the forefront. We have recently been involved in the work of the drug action teams and with care workers and in a range of other things. Staff are working extremely hard to compensate for the overcrowding, but they still have to deal with it. The issue at Barlinnie is managing the numbers.
I want to pursue that point. In a previous discussion, I think in relation to the budget, we were surprised to hear that one of the official statistics relates to the number of prison officers and capacity. We thought that that should be prison officers and prisoners.
There is an issue. Some prisoners need little supervision, whereas others need significant supervision, so resources are applied at different levels, depending on the type or classification of prisoner, the security risk and the danger posed by the prisoner to staff. Every prisoner who comes in is assessed on their dangerousness, their security and any difficulty, whether that concerns health or mental welfare. It is not a simple case of relating the number of prison officers to the number of prisoners.
I am not entirely happy with that. From the figures that have been supplied—doubtless, things have changed—I note that there were 1,106 prisoners in Barlinnie and that the capacity was 836. How many prison officers do you need to run the prison really well with 836 prisoners, and how many do you need to run it with 1,106 prisoners?
We can run the prison with the same number of staff, having undertaken the risk assessments and the safe systems at work assessments, but we have to adapt things. George Peden may wish to speak about how much staff time we apply to dealing with overcrowding.
Slopping out will probably take up about three hours of a member of staff's time every day, between a quarter to 7 in the morning and approximately half-past 9 at night. We also have figures for programme activities and for visits. Each convicted prisoner is allocated four hours' work time, working with concrete or in the joiner's shop, for example. Other activities take up time every day, in addition to the three hours a day spent on slopping out.
We have had to make a morning and afternoon timetable, so that prisoners get at least some time out of their cells. If we reduce the number of prisoners, we will increase the opportunities for people to spend more time getting involved in activities. The ratio is relevant to the number of people in a work party—or workshop—but we try not to think of things on that basis. We try to maximise the time spent out of the cell, but without risk to staff.
So the increased number of prisoners in relation to capacity means a less good experience for all the prisoners, in that they do not get so much time for recreation, crafts and so on.
Yes.
I will just air another bee in my bonnet. Would sorting out the court system have a major effect on your staff's time, or would that be regarded as a nice but only minor move?
Alternatives to imprisonment would significantly help Barlinnie. There are other aspects. We are engaged with the Procurator Fiscal Service and the police in trying to smooth the movements between court and prison and so on. I am going down to Manchester soon with the court service, a sheriff and some others to look at a videoconferencing initiative between the court and the prison, which could alleviate some prisoner movement and help with the disruption that that causes. Nevertheless, it is our duty to take prisoners to court. I cannot comment on what other avenues or initiatives there are for the courts.
Do your people have to hang around the court during the day to see whether the case will be called? If not, do the police do that and your people just come and go?
The majority of prisoner movements to court are done by the police. Barlinnie staff take convicted prisoners to outlying courts such as Hamilton and Stirling.
Thank you. I had not realised that.
So the police take remand prisoners.
The police take the untried remand prisoners.
That would be most of the movements. I am interested in video links and videoconferencing, which will probably be an important way forward, but first I want to clear up one or two matters.
We intend to move untried prisoners who are in C hall into B hall, which will take the untried prisoner population. They will have better facilities, such as integral sanitation and EPIC—electric power in cells—but that will not necessarily relieve the overcrowding.
Yes. In fact, it might do the opposite, or are the numbers the same?
The numbers are the same.
What is the scope within the Barlinnie compound for building a new block, say, or a new prison?
The estate is quite tight as it is built against the wall, although there is a football park outside the wall that belongs to us. Rebuilding would require the demolition of possibly two of the existing halls, which are substantial. Alternatively, it would mean the demolition of the work parties—or workshops—which would not be a good idea, as we are trying to keep people out of their cells. The possibilities are limited unless there is demolition, which is an expensive way to do it.
That would be demolition of halls that have already been refurbished.
Yes, and we are already talking about being overcrowded.
Yes. Demolition does not seem to be a good option.
On a point of information, if halls were to be demolished, it would not be those that have been refurbished. The refurbished halls would be retained.
I am sorry. I meant to point that out. We intend to refurbish five halls and have done three so far. Depending on what the estates review states, we might end up with demolition, but I am not party to what is in the estates review.
None of us is, I am afraid.
We wonder whether it exists.
I cannot say that there are not, but I can say that since the report there have been significant improvements to enhance the situation for prisoners. Those include access to showers and new bedding, replacement of dirty pillows, and access to a cleaning kit. A range of improvements have taken place. I do not know whether I can give the committee a promise, but inspections ensure that the situation is improved. Staff check those items.
But there may still be dirty cells with torn mattresses and filthy pillows.
I hope not. Staff check cells regularly. As governor, I would hope not to find such a cell and I would not like to find one.
When other committee members and I visited the prison, remand conditions were dreadful. I take it that remand prisoners are still located in the same place.
They are the prisoners who I said would move to B hall in March.
However, they are currently in the same place.
Yes. I ask George Peden to comment, because he is involved on the ground. I think that furniture has been provided and that a range of measures has been undertaken.
The inspectorate's report mentioned a dirty cell in A hall. Since November 2000—within a couple of weeks of the committee's visit—the cells in C hall, which holds all remand prisoners, and A hall, which the committee also visited, have been refurbished. The refurbishment included new bunk beds, new cell furniture, new chairs and privacy screens. The refurbishment was planned. The cells have been fairly dramatically upgraded.
Did that happen in the old remand hall?
Yes. That was done in C hall.
How have the facilities been upgraded? They did not appear to have much room for upgrading.
We are talking about new beds, new mattresses, new bedding, new lockers and new basins, for example. The situation remains unsatisfactory and I am not here to defend it. The staff try to alleviate some of the unacceptability of prisoners' circumstances.
I was with the inspector who saw the dirty cell. The bedding looked like it had been there for about 30 years—it was very old and had ingrained dirt. It was not as if someone had just been sick on it. I am glad to know that improvements are being made.
Is sufficient funding available to upgrade present facilities? We should separate that issue from the issue of providing sanitation facilities in B hall.
There are sufficient funds for upgrading bedding. It is unacceptable for someone to have poor bedding, poor pillowslips, poor pillows, a poor unit, a poor bed frame and a dirty cell. Measures have been taken, including providing cleaning and sterilising equipment and cleaning cells. I expect the tasks to be performed. I do not know whether I can guarantee that, but it is my job to ensure that the measures are undertaken.
Do remand prisoners have the worst conditions of all categories of prisoner in Barlinnie, or is that comment unfair?
Conditions for remand prisoners are similar to those for other prisoners, but you are right that the conditions are unsatisfactory.
What is the capacity of the refurbished B hall? What is the occupancy of C hall? Will B hall clear up the number from C hall?
The capacity of B hall is 170, but it can take up to 250. The average number in C hall is about 280.
Even after refurbishment, overcrowding will continue.
People on remand will go through to the new hall, but because of overcrowding, we must locate some of the untried in other halls. That is not a significant proportion—the number is small. Some of the untried who require protection because they are vulnerable must also be located away from others.
That must be a huge problem. I know that the halls have managers, but the situation must cause problems for you, as governor, and for prisoners on remand, who are among untried prisoners and, as you say, might be vulnerable.
Overcrowding is unwelcome. It poses a significant problem for staff looking for rooms. A prison is almost like a hotel. We try to segment the population but, at times, we are looking for space, so people must move about. That takes up valuable resources.
We are going to talk about the infamous estates review—perhaps we should just call it the ER. I am curious about why you have money to refurbish B hall when the rumour abounds that Barlinnie is for the chop.
That was the rumour. I cannot comment.
You have far better information than I have.
I am not sure that I do. All I can say is that anything that happens at Barlinnie is unlikely to happen quickly and so we still have to deal with the situation that exists.
I am sure that you have seen the SPS staff survey for August 2001, which I have before me. It shows clearly that morale is dreadful. There are particular problems around relations between prison officers and the SPS.
We talked earlier about definitions of morale. I have been in the service for 30 years and I have been a governor for 27 years. During that time, morale has risen and fallen, depending on the changes that have been made over the years. The changes that have taken place in the past year are unheard of in my experience. They are necessary, but no one in the service has ever gone through a similar process. I can understand the response of staff. I do not particularly like it, because it is not good for me as a manager; it sets a significant challenge for me, especially with the sort of issues that we now have to deal with, such as the changes to staff attendance patterns and the fact that Barlinnie and three other prisons are awaiting the outcome of the estates review. People are apprehensive, fearful and concerned; they have every right to be, because they cannot get information on the progress of the estates review and the important decisions have not been made.
People do not like change if it is thrust upon them rather than something in which they have had a hand. Reading the survey gives me the impression that the SPS hierarchy is completely disconnected from prison officers at the coalface. I know that you and the chief inspector of prisons commend staff and say that they deliver a good service in a professional manner, but the situation seems very sad.
I can comment only on the SPS. I have read about other organisations in which change has had a significant effect on people—
But you are an experienced person. You have been in the service for 30 years. You must have a feel—
I have seen morale go up and I have seen it go down. From my discussions with the staff I am aware that they want to know what is happening and why it is happening. Even when I explain that, they are still fearful. People are concerned about whether Barlinnie will survive.
I ask Derek Gunn to comment, as he is a representative of the SPS.
It is important that we monitor such issues by carrying out surveys, which are important indicators and which we take seriously. We have taken a range of actions to address recognised difficulties. We made clear promises that there would be no job losses and we made promises on transfers, which indicates that we are making a serious attempt to understand and to deal with problems. We recognise the problems with change.
Should not action have been taken before morale got so low? There were other ways of engaging the staff at the coalface with what was ahead. There appears to be a disconnection between what happens at the coalface and what is decided up above. There is no communication or engagement between the two apart from on the long-delayed prison estates review, for which we have waited for more than a year. Has the SPS failed?
Other measures suggest that we are doing extremely well in delivering a range of things. In his report, HM chief inspector of prisons pointed out repeatedly that staff work well, provide a high level of activity and cope with immense problems. Bill McKinlay spoke about Barlinnie, which has a high number of movements and is overcrowded, but the staff do a good job. We heard the same about the staff in Peterhead, who also do a good job.
I appreciate that. I have the comparative results of the staff surveys for August 1999 to August 2001. Question 43 of the staff survey is:
I accept that the figures reveal a huge drop.
Another indicator for determining the health of an organisation is the number of leavers. We have fewer leavers than the national average and, in Barlinnie, only three out of 308 residential staff have left. That is not to deny the facts: we must work on our communication strategy. If staff think that they are less engaged than before, I have to deal with that as a front-line manager. George Peden is close to the people who responded to the survey. He may want to comment.
I go around Barlinnie daily and I go into the residential area daily. Yes, staff are apprehensive. They feel insecure about the estates review and about changes in staff attendance. However, that has not stopped them doing their job, as the key performance indicators show. The survey shows that 60 per cent of respondents said that they had good communication with their line managers.
Yes, I was going to raise that point.
A total of 70 per cent said that they felt they were treated with fairness and respect by their colleagues, so—
Can I stop you there, Mr Peden? I was considering the SPS and the fact that there was a breakdown with management further up—not at line-manager level. A high percentage thought that line managers were doing a worthwhile job.
I want to ask about staff turnover and staff illness. Has the low morale that the survey indicates caused staff to leave? I am told that prison staff have left to join the police. If staff are not happy and are stressed, they will sometimes go off with stress-related illnesses. You have said that turnover is low. How does it compare with turnover in other prisons and other industries?
Turnover is less than what would be an acceptable figure in other industries—although I am not sure what they would deem an acceptable figure. At Barlinnie, the sickness rate has gone down from an average of 28.8 days per person in 1994-95 to an average of 10.4 days per person this year. If things were as difficult as has been said, we would not have expected to see that fall. However, those figures may not apply across the board; I cannot speak for other establishments.
So you see a mismatch between what is happening in the prison and what the officers have said.
As a manager, I still have to take account of those views. It is important that I heed the responses and deal with them.
I will put a final point to you; I put the same point to the governor of Peterhead. It is not to insult you; I just want to give you the opportunity to respond. Derek Turner of the Prison Officers Association Scotland said that your transfer to a position at Barlinnie had been seen
I am wondering whether it is worth commenting, but I will do so.
I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that on the record.
That is fine. I have been a governor for 25 years. I spent the five and a half years before I came to Barlinnie managing and governing the maximum-security prison at Shotts, which had 560 maximum-security prisoners—the prison included the Shotts unit. I was asked some time ago whether I would move to Barlinnie. I was keen to do so. That was not because the incumbent was being forced out, but because he had chosen another career path. I do not consider that that in any way reflects on me or my abilities. When I moved into the position, I had—believe me—no intention of keeping my mouth closed when I saw something wrong. That is not to say that the board is the problem if something does not fit or I do not agree with something.
In fairness to Mr Turner, I should add that the speculation was also made in the media.
I was just talking about that one individual.
I raised the issue to give you the opportunity to respond.
I am conscious of the time, convener, so I am happy to press ahead.
Low Moss is another prison that I have visited. One of the pluses of being on the Justice 1 Committee is that we get to go to prisons.
I have not been to Low Moss. I would find it helpful if the witnesses described briefly the prison's physical appearance. I know that it consists of wartime wooden huts.
The prison is surrounded by a single fence. It contains 14 former barracks, as I imagine they would be called, which now form the dormitories and other facilities. They are linked together by a central communicating corridor. In addition to that, we have substantial and more modern industrial areas, for the textiles and joinery workshops and our estates staff, for example.
I add only that, over a year ago, we inherited temporary cellular accommodation from HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont. That accommodation comprises 30 cells. At present, 50 prisoners are located there.
This may be an unfair question, given that the review is taking place. In your view, would it make more sense to improve Low Moss where it is or to construct a new prison somewhere else?
I do not have the technical expertise to give you a competent answer on that. Like my colleagues before me, I await the outcome of the estates review.
One point that surprised me was the statement in paragraph 5.2 on page 11 of your submission. You say:
Because Low Moss is a short-term establishment. People serve shorter sentences, so the turnover is considerably higher than at Shotts, which has longer-term prisoners.
There is not a faster turnover than there used to be; there is a faster turnover compared with other prisons.
Yes.
People have said to me that short sentences are a waste of time, because there cannot be an effective programme of education and rehabilitation. Is that a valid criticism? Can a sentence be too short to allow you to have an impact?
Even with a short sentence, we can make an impact. We are trying to achieve that with colleagues in Low Moss. I ask Michael Crossan to comment on that.
Generally, the SPS does not have the structured sentence-management approach to short-termers that it has to long-termers. That process starts with proper risk and needs assessments. A considerable number of prisoners spend an extremely short time in prison. That said, a number are involved in the revolving door syndrome, which has been described as serving a life sentence in instalments. Those people constantly come back to prison.
Paragraph 5.2 also states:
The initiative is very much in its infancy. As part of the SPS drugs strategy, we will, in December or January, be employing four external agency workers. We will also be the location for the throughcare chaplaincy. We engage with the Church of Scotland and other denominations to provide accommodation for prisoners on liberation. We have an initiative called the new leaf project, which attempts to find employment for prisoners on release. It has been extremely successful. We also have a housing officer who attends for approximately two and a half days per week.
I should say how much I appreciated the welcome that I received when I visited Low Moss some years ago. The chief inspector of prisons suggested that there were not enough nursing staff at Low Moss to operate a drug detoxification programme, despite the obvious need for that service. Is that matter being addressed?
Yes. That was the case at the time of the inspection. A nurse is now dedicated to that matter.
There is some concern about the increase in the rate of positive mandatory drug tests at Low Moss; I think that 35 was the average for 2000-01, compared with 28 for the year before. Is that a particular problem? Is the matter being looked into and dealt with?
Drug taking continues to be a problem. As Mr Crossan indicated in his response to Mr Gorrie, we are addressing it in a number of ways, including mandatory drug testing. There is no easy fix. As long as that problem continues in society, prison managers and the rest of the prison staff will continue to focus on it.
The chief inspector said that the prospect of privatisation was unsettling. Is that the case? It would be helpful to know whether the staff are unsettled in that respect and whether steps have been taken to deal with that.
When the chief executive of the SPS appeared before the committee on 23 October, he indicated that the world has changed for the SPS since there has been another provider. Change is unsettling for everyone. We are attempting to manage that by communicating with our staff. I heard the convener quoting from the staff survey. I heard my colleague Mr McKinlay say that as prison managers we need to continue to address the issue to ensure that we keep our staff on board. They are doing an excellent job at present.
Has the delayed estates review had an adverse effect on staff morale and on your plans for modernising the prison?
I have to admit that I have been back in the country for only a few weeks, having served in the Netherlands for a considerable period. I ask Mr Crossan to respond to that.
As we develop a regime, the estate has to support that regime. Investment in Low Moss will be an issue once the estates review has been made public. I do not want to speculate on the extent of further investment. Over the past year in particular, the prisons board has upgraded the gate facility. The cookhouse has been renovated with new equipment and there are plans to upgrade the waiting area for prisoners' families. In order to assist with the development of our regime, part of the estate has been turned into office accommodation.
I have some more questions about the survey of prison officers. The survey showed that morale was low. The governor of Barlinnie said that, in spite of that, he did not think that there had been any real effect on the way in which the prison officers were working—they were still working very professionally. Absence and turnover rates were low and people were not leaving the service. Could you say the same about Low Moss or are there indications that the staff there are more anxious? Perhaps they feel that they have reason to be more anxious.
I have no way of accurately gauging the staff's anxiety. However, I can tell you that, since I came to Low Moss, I have seen a highly committed staff, who are keen to do a good job and may well be affected by uncertainty. Overriding all that, however, is the staff's commitment to deliver what we are asking them to deliver.
How does the turnover rate compare with that in other prisons?
In the past six months, we have had the resignation of three band C officers and one dismissal and, in the past 12 months, we have had the retirement of two band D officers and one resignation, so the turnover is low.
I wish to ask about the increase in the number of positive mandatory drug tests, which went up to 35 in 2000-01 from 28 the previous year. When I went round the prison with your predecessor, one concern was that, because Low Moss is a low-security prison, people were literally throwing drugs over the fence. That may not be the only way in which drugs were entering the prison. Your predecessor said that some of his prison officers had to spend time wandering around picking up packages. Is that still happening?
There is a risk, given the nature of the perimeter fence and the location, that that will continue to happen. There have been upgrades and camera facilities have been extended to try to identify people. The number of prisoners who are allowed to move around the prison unescorted has been reduced. There will always be a risk, but we are taking steps to reduce it. It is significant that, in years gone by, we were more reluctant to take prisoners at Low Moss who had a drug problem. We now are willing to accept prisoners who require detoxification on admission, so the profile of the population has changed and with that change in profile there has been a corresponding rise in the number of drug abusers compared with the number we had a year or two ago.
Do the dormitory conditions contribute to that? How many men are in a dormitory?
On average there are 27 men in a dormitory.
The conditions in the dormitories are basic. They must be cold. It is cold here, but it would be cold in winter in those huts. Do the dormitories facilitate drug exchange? Do they contribute to the drug culture, including, for example, intimidation?
It is fair to say that the dormitory conditions do not help our efforts to prevent drug misuse.
Does Alba House still exist?
Alba House does not exist.
Self-referral was used there. Why was it stopped?
The view of the previous governor was that, in Barlinnie, the number of prisoners who had the opportunity to address their offending behaviour did not truly reflect the drug problem. It was felt that, with the new SPS strategy, it would be better, as far as the staff at Low Moss were concerned, to take a different approach to drug behaviour.
Do you agree with that?
There was never a formal assessment of Alba House, so it is difficult to say how successful the approach was. As you indicated, the level of drug abuse is quite significant in Low Moss and, in terms of the investment, Alba House alone was not really addressing the problem.
Could you expand on what you said about resources? I recall that, in a previous report of the chief inspector of prisons, one of the pluses of Alba House was that it was pretty tough. I think that prisoners did cold turkey there. There was very much a community influence, in that each had to influence the others into being honest about their position. The impression that I got was that that was by no means an easy option. I accept what you say about there being no measure of how successful that approach was. Tell me about resources and whether it would be useful to have something like Alba House, given all the problems of the revolving door for prisoners, which I agree means that, in effect, prisoners at Low Moss often serve a long sentence by instalments.
Although there is an issue about resources, the situation must also be seen in the context of the role of residential staff at Low Moss in previous years. It was identified that residential staff were not engaging significantly with prisoners. As a result of our new staff attendance systems, we have officers working full time in the dormitories. Part of the strategy is that a dedicated officer or group of officers work in dormitories and those officers are competent to deal with many of the drug issues that present at Low Moss. That is the approach that we wish to take.
Does that new way of working with officers explain the fall in levels of prisoner violence that the chief inspector of prisons pointed out?
There are a number of factors behind that reduction, prime among which is the fact that we have installed closed-circuit television cameras in the dormitories. That has not totally eradicated violent incidents because, as a low-security establishment, Low Moss obviously has a lower level of supervision than there would be in a high-security establishment. That said, to a greater extent, there has been a reduction in both the number of assaults in dormitories and, as the chief inspector mentioned, the number of people slipping on soap.
I do not remember reading that in the report. That is quite interesting.
A difficulty is that many prisoners are in prison for only two or three months. During my visit to the education unit, the teacher told me that there was no continuity because the prisoners came in, were released and then came back again. I was also concerned about the quality of the employment. For example, I saw some prisoners stripping wire; however, I believe that wire-stripping is a tough job and that there is a certain kudos for the men who do it. How can we improve the quality of education and employment at a prison such as Low Moss where the population is made up of short-term prisoners? I am sure that you will agree that the quality is not—
It is certainly an improvement from the days when I would wander into the industrial area of Barlinnie and see the prisoners sewing mailbags.
Wire stripping is not much further up the scale.
It is, but only marginally.
I agree that the situation is not ideal. There is an issue about the extent to which we could introduce certificated vocational training for short-term prisoners. Salvage work keeps them busy and employed and allows them to associate with others, which probably—more than anything else—is its objective.
So that is an issue that the SPS should consider, especially in relation to short-term prisoners.
Yes.
Thank you very much. We will have a five-minute adjournment.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—