Official Report 174KB pdf
I turn now to today's witnesses. I thank the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice for joining us today. This meeting was originally scheduled for tomorrow but, as a result of the Parliamentary Bureau decision to extend parliamentary business tomorrow morning, there had to be some hasty reorganisation, so I thank him and his office for accommodating that change. It is only with a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing and co-operation that we have been able to secure the minister's attendance this afternoon.
Thank you, convener. I should introduce Ruth Ritchie, who is from the Scottish Executive's finance division.
We will only reach that if we have time. We may run out of time. I understand, minister, that you are tied to 4.30 pm. Is that right?
Yes.
Minister, when we were taking evidence—you have alluded to that evidence today, although the situation is slightly different from what we were lead to believe—we saw figures that suggested that there would be an increase in prison numbers over the next couple of years, and then a levelling off at a figure that is higher than the current prison population.
I am certainly aware of the projections made by the Scottish Executive's civil and criminal justice statistics unit. Predicting the number of prisoners is notoriously difficult. Some of the projections for the number of prisoners this year, made in the middle of the 1990s, were in the order of 6,700. Last year's prediction for this year was 6,200. By the summer of this year, the number was scaled down to 6,100. The average for the year will in fact be 6,000. As at 3 December, the figure stood at 5,928. Even a prediction made in the summer of this year is out by 100, and there has been a general undershoot.
I anticipate that there will be more particular questions about Penninghame and Dungavel. Do you have any follow-up questions, Scott?
Minister, I accept the difficulty of estimating prisoner numbers, given that we do not know what the courts may decide to do. What is the contingency plan, if there is one, to avoid serious overcrowding in the Scottish Prison Service if the number rises to the level that has been predicted?
Let me make it clear. The announcement does not make overcrowding significantly more likely. Taking into account the nature of the prisons which are earmarked for closure and the security category of prisoners likely to go into them, there is excess capacity in the system, as was demonstrated when the number reached a high earlier this year. If capacity problems emerge, they are more likely to concern the higher-security prisons. It is important to point out that the capital programme for the Scottish Prison Service has not been cut. There are new developments at Perth prison and Polmont young offenders institution.
We were concerned to hear that the proposal to phase out slopping out is to be a casualty of the cuts—or the apparent reduction in the overall budget. Do you have any comments on that, minister?
We all agree that we wish to see the end of slopping out. It had been an aspiration that that could be done by 2005. It could be that, as a result of the announcements, that date is set back. I accept that possibility, which depends on a number of factors. One such factor will be the outcome of the prison estates review. Another is whether new halls are built or existing halls are refurbished. Linked to that is the question of whether there will be any increase in prisoner numbers.
In September, slopping out was a priority for the Prison Service. Now, in December, it does not appear to be so. In September, there was a predicted end date for slopping out. In December, we do not have one. Those changes are a direct result of the cuts, are they not?
You are right to say that the end date was predicted. There was never a formal target, which ministers sometimes set. I think that I was clear when I answered Mr Barrie earlier: it is no longer considered possible to reach the predicted end date.
As a direct result of the cuts.
It is one of the results. We do not yet know what the position is. That will depend on decisions that are still to be taken with regard to the future shape of the prison estate and on prisoner numbers. Progress can still be made towards the ending of slopping out, but I will not pretend that there is still a predicted end date.
With respect, minister, you have already said to us that the closure decisions that are a result of the cuts were made on the basis of your as yet unfounded assumptions of declining prisoner numbers. We have had evidence that prisoner numbers will rise.
I have said that predicting prisoner numbers is notoriously difficult.
But you can close prisons only if you predict that prisoner numbers will decrease.
I will repeat what I said in my statement. Because of alternatives to custody, we anticipate that the projected rise in the prison population, which is already diminishing, will continue to fall. It is perhaps significant that the population of Scottish prisons has been stable at an average of 6,000 a year since 1997-98. I went on to say that we cannot be complacent about that, which is why there is a review of the prison estate, including the forward capital programme of refurbishment and rebuilding.
A decline in a projected rise and a decline in absolute numbers are different things. You said that the prison closures will take place on the basis of a slowing down of the projected rise. Was that your evidence?
That was the evidence. I am sure that the official report will have picked it up and I will give the reporters a copy of my statement so that they can report it accurately. I have also indicated that the prisons that are being closed are not the ones that have experienced problems with overcrowding. The prisons that are being closed are ones where there has been over-capacity. One would not send category A or B prisoners to Penninghame. Even when prisoner numbers reached a peak this year, there was excess capacity in Scotland's open prisons and in category C prisons.
I think that we understand what you are trying to say. The difficulty for us is the evidence that we have heard. For example, the fact that Dungavel appeared not to be full to capacity was a result of a decision that was taken to allow the prison to achieve the enormous success that it has done. The end result, however, is the closure of the prison. How can you justify that?
The fact that Dungavel was not full to capacity is indicative of the fact that category C prisons were not full to capacity. I did not specify Dungavel, I talked about category C prisons. There were other reasons why Dungavel was an appropriate prison to close. The dormitory-type accommodation was not liked by prisoners or prison officers. It is not the most convenient for visitors to attend. You mentioned the work that has been done towards making Dungavel free of drugs. I am grateful for the opportunity to note it with approval. However, that work is being attempted in all parts of the Prison Service. Similar efforts will be made in Friarton, which is where most of the prisoners from Dungavel will go.
Dungavel had made the greatest progress, though.
I accept that.
Yes or no, minister. Had Dungavel made the greatest progress?
I said that I accepted that.
And it was one of the shining examples in the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, was it not?
The prison did well, but many factors were taken into account.
Was the market value of Dungavel a factor?
I did not take the decision, but I know that there were a number of factors. Seven criteria were used when the Scottish Prison Service decided to close or, in the case of the Peterhead unit, mothball establishments: operational impact of closure; cost per prisoner place; flexibility of establishment to change its role; maximum use of available accommodation; geographic location; future investment needs; and recent substantial investment. I should also mention that Dungavel was not built as a prison.
The Scottish Prison Service seems to have been forced to make decisions. How much input did you have into the decisions around the £13.5 million that was marked for redistribution in the justice budget?
I have overall responsibility for the justice budget within an Executive that determines the distribution of an overall budget. The Parliament will have an opportunity to consider that tomorrow morning.
I recognise that you must prioritise. I am a little surprised to hear today that £2 million has been announced for the witness support scheme. While we welcome that initiative, it did not seem to be a factor in previous debates.
I am sure that Mr Cameron can speak for himself. I have every confidence in his ability to lead the Prison Service in his role as chief executive. I have had regular meetings with him since he took up that post, and I do not believe that he feels undermined in any way. He feels perfectly able to cope with the challenge with which he was presented as a consequence of the budgetary decisions. Mr Cameron can say whether he feels undermined or not.
I agree entirely with what Mr Wallace has said.
You may agree with him, but it could be said that you are disagreeing with the evidence that we have taken from the warders, the people whom you control and for whom you are responsible. Although it might be reasonable to expect, Mr Wallace, that at present Mr Cameron feels totally unaffected by what has happened and on top of the job, it may just be that he has not got down yet to the roots of the problem and does not realise what dismay the staff of the Scottish Prison Service feel.
That may be true, but the fact of the matter is—
I was addressing the minister.
It is true that I agree with what the minister said and disagree with some of the evidence that you have received, which was inaccurate and wrong.
Mr Cameron is an experienced civil servant of the highest calibre and is more than equal to the challenge that he has been set. That will become evident as time passes.
That is not the point, Mr Wallace. The fact that Mr Cameron is very capable goes without saying, given the level to which he has risen in the civil service. However, for any new manager who is coming into a major position and is inexperienced in that particular area of operation suddenly to be faced with a considerable budget cut, before having had a chance to examine all the circumstances is, surely, unfair.
I want to record that I am aware of the steps that Mr Cameron has taken to ensure that, at critical times in this process, his governors and staff were kept as fully informed as possible and that decisions were communicated to them as quickly as possible.
There is no argument about the speed of communication. It had to be fast, given the speed of closures.
To be fair, Mr Gallie, Mr Cameron took considerable steps to ensure that his staff found out what was happening from him and from the board, rather than from newspaper reports. He acted very properly from the point of view of personnel management.
I want to change tack slightly. The recent report by the chief inspector of prisons for Scotland recognises that there is still overcrowding and that there are considerable problems of drug abuse, but we are planning to remove 400 experienced officers from the Scottish Prison Service. Not long ago, I asked you a question in the chamber about the number of time-off-in-lieu hours that were outstanding—currently more than 100,000 hours, which, I was told, equated to 20 hours per man. However, on further investigation one finds that the situation varies across the service and that there are very high pockets of time off in lieu in the key prisons. Have you given any further thought to that? Has there been any thought of slowing down the removal of prison officers from the service?
That is very much an operational matter, although I am aware that people often want to arrange time off in lieu to suit their personal circumstances.
They cannot in some prisons.
Mr Gallie has referred to the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, which was published in August this year. I want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that the chief inspector indicated that, earlier in the decade, the prison population was expected to rise to nearly 7,000 this year. That underlines what I was saying about how notoriously difficult it is to predict numbers in prison.
Mr Wallace, I do not want us to keep going over this. There is a clear difference in evidence that we have taken on the expected rise in prison population.
I was not challenging the evidence that you have received on the projections. I was just putting it in context and making the point that in the summer of this year, when Mr Fairweather was drawing up his report, the estimated prison population for the current year was 6,100. The actual total is nearer 6,000. Within even the few months since the summer—
Mr Fairweather also pointed out—
Even then, Mr Fairweather said that there was scope for the closure of one or two of the more isolated establishments.
We would be considerably more impressed, Mr Wallace, if the closure of prisons had been delayed until we could actually see a decline in numbers. Phil, you have one more question.
Mr Fairweather also pointed out that it is always important in the Scottish Prison Service to have 120-odd places vacant to deal with emergency situations. The closures will make that impossible. Have you any thoughts on that?
The Scottish Prison Service continues to have in place appropriate contingency plans for emergency situations.
But not 120 places. That is being reviewed.
In the summer of this year, Mr Fairweather thought that there was scope for closing one or two establishments.
I will try to keep my questions short, and I hope that I will get short answers. When was consideration first given to £13 million being taken from the prison fund—consideration given to that, rather than a decision taken on it?
Once we knew what the justice department's budget was to be, following discussions with the Minister for Finance, and once it had been agreed by the Cabinet, consideration had to be given to how that budget should be divvied up within the department.
When was that?
You may recall that Mr McConnell made an announcement to the Parliament on 6 October.
So, prior to that, no consideration was given to taking funds from the prison reserves or piggy-bank?
As you may know, in the run-up to the decision by the Minister for Finance, great efforts are made to secure budgets. The justice department kept its budget intact this year, but only once we knew what the budget was going to be was it possible to make the decisions that flowed from that.
So the £13 million was never discussed and, before 6 October, there was no suggestion of money being taken from the prisons budget?
Clearly, in my negotiations with Mr McConnell he was aware that there was £24 million end-year flexibility, along with other end-year flexibilities in the justice budget. That was a matter for bilateral negotiation. We were not unaware that the money was there and that, theoretically, it was possible to use it to fund justice department priorities. However, we could not get down to making hard-and-fast decisions until we knew what the budget was going to be.
That is why I made the distinction between consideration and decisions.
That is a question for Mr Cameron.
I will put it to him.
No. At that time I was dealing with agriculture and food, rather than prisons.
That is a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
That is a matter for the board of the Scottish Prison Service. I had a very constructive meeting with representatives of the prison staff, who are willing to engage in discussion with the board of the Scottish Prison Service. I am not pretending that they were happy with the situation, but I was impressed by the constructive way in which they addressed it. Day-to-day industrial relations between employer and employee are an operational matter for the Scottish Prison Service.
Do you think that low morale among employees will have any impact on the inmates?
That is an operational matter. Prison officers are committed to their job and realise its importance and seriousness. They conduct themselves in a professional manner.
What financial assistance will be available for relocation of prison officers? I understand that some officers have relocated to Dungavel, only to find that they will have to move again.
Exit packages are on offer. It may be more appropriate for Mr Cameron to give the details.
Briefly, please.
But relocation packages are available?
Relocation packages are available for those who require them. Some people will move to prisons that are nearer where they live and others to prisons that are further away.
Another point, which Clive Fairweather observed in his report and which was picked up by the prison officers, is the need for training. Many officers will have worked in a certain category of prison with a certain kind of prisoner and will now be decanted—some against their will—to prisons with different kinds of prisoners. What training, if any, will be given to those officers?
Prison officers will receive whatever training the governors in the receiving establishments judge necessary.
Will there be a change in the training programme?
Yes. We need to train people for the task. We are no longer recruiting, so we will do less recruitment training.
I appreciate that other members want to ask questions, but I have one final point. The closure of Penninghame is another issue, which was raised in evidence by the Prison Staff Association on 1 December. Its view was that Penninghame was not sufficiently used, but that that was the fault not of Penninghame, but of the Scottish Prison Service. I recall that the witnesses were dismayed by the closure, because there is a great reduction in recidivism among prisoners who go to Penninghame. The Prison Staff Association was concerned that cutting the open prison service would lead to a cycle of prisoners reoffending.
That is not true. The Prison Service's decision was not a reflection on the work of the staff at Penninghame, which is excellent, but was based on the nature of the building and its location. We do not agree that programmes to address reoffending will be affected materially by the closure; indeed, they may be enhanced, because less money will be spent on Penninghame.
The prison officers made the point that Penninghame open prison was not sufficiently utilised by the Prison Service.
That is the point that I tried to make earlier. There is overcapacity in open prisons.
That is not the point that the prison officers made. They said that not enough prisoners—
With respect, Mrs Grahame, those are two sides of the same coin. The prison was underutilised.
The point that was made was that prisoners were not encouraged to go through open prisons and to get training, which we have heard is more difficult elsewhere.
I saw the evidence. We disagree with it.
You may disagree with it, but that was the evidence.
It is up to the committee to evaluate the evidence before it. However, it is important to point out that there is also evidence that Scotland requires two, not three, open prisons. The Prison Service is closing the smallest of the three establishments, which is in a remote site that is sometimes difficult to reach for visits. If an emergency were to arise—
That was the only prison, apart from Dungavel, that had a market value next to it in the options paper. Would you care to comment on that?
I gave you the list of criteria, of which that is one. You would fully expect those of us who are charged with responsibility for the public purse to get best value, while ensuring that operational requirements are met. Overcapacity clearly existed. Is the committee satisfied that the priorities I identified in other areas of the justice budget are ones that should be met? If so, does the committee propose to identify other areas that should be cut, or is it suggesting that other prisons should have been cut?
With respect, minister, it would be reasonable to summarise the view of the committee as being that you have taken a real flier at this. You have crossed your fingers, you hope that the numbers will go down and, if they do not, we still be stuck with fewer prisons.
With respect, if that is what the committee thinks, it has missed the point.
There may be a difference of opinion as to what the point is.
The point that I have tried to convey to the committee is that the prisons that are marked for closure are ones where there was considerable overcapacity, even when prison numbers were high. I have not avoided the problems with higher-security prisons, which is why the Prison Service is setting up an estates review. The committee will no doubt want to return to that issue when the review reports. That is part of the overall picture. Is it being suggested that it might have been more appropriate to close other prisons or that we should not invest more in victim support or the drugs enforcement agency?
Come on, minister. Instead of you asking the committee detailed questions—when it is quite clear that the committee is of the view that no prisons should have been closed—I will let Christine ask one more question.
My question follows on from what has been said about the value placed on prisons. Have there been any discussions with private providers of prison services regarding the sale of Penninghame, Dungavel or Dumfries prisons? The fact that there is suspicion that the Prison Service will be privatised, and that that is why those prisons are on the market, was raised with us in evidence.
I have not had any such discussions.
I have not had any such discussions either.
Are you aware that any such discussions have taken place, even if you have not been involved personally?
No.
No.
Minister, you mentioned alternatives to custody. Which types of offender would qualify for alternatives to custody and which would go into custody?
Inevitably, prisoners who fall into lower-security categories would qualify for alternatives to custody. The prison population can be categorised in a number of ways, for example those who are serving mandatory life sentences. There are also 1,800 prisoners who are serving sentences for serious crimes of violence and sexual offences. Others are in prison for serious drug offences, particularly drug dealing. Prison remains the proper disposal for those people. However, about 2,700 people in prisons are, arguably, not a risk to the public. In some of those cases, prison will no doubt be the proper disposal. At the end of the day, that is for the courts to determine in the light of all the circumstances. For some of those people though, community-based sentences would be more appropriate.
There is supposedly overcapacity in open prisons at the moment.
There is overcapacity in open prisons and in category C prisons.
The policy is that there will be alternatives to custody. If that policy is successful, are we liable to see fewer prisoners in lower-security and open prisons?
That would be the expectation and the objective. However, at the end of the day, those are matters for the courts. I want to ensure that the courts have at their disposal a robust range of sentences, including non-custodial sentences, in which they and the public have confidence.
In simple terms, we could characterise the prison estate as lacking higher-security provision, but having too much lower-security and open prison provision. Are you saying that fewer people might need lower-security provision were the policy objective to be successful?
Yes. If the policy is successful, those who are likely to get non-custodial sentences—and who would have got custodial sentences in the past—are likely to be at the lower end of the security scale. If there is a problem—or the potential for one—it is at the higher-security end.
Was there any consideration of the future success of the policy of alternatives in the decisions to close Dungavel and Penninghame?
Those were operational decisions taken by the Scottish Prison Service. I am sure that the service takes such decisions with the knowledge of where there is current excess capacity—particularly in open and category C prisons—and against a background of the Executive policy to increase the use of non-custodial sentencing.
I have a question about Longriggend, which I visited with other members of the committee. A question was put to me about remand prisoners. At Longriggend, we saw that all types of remand prisoners were put together and concern was expressed that some of those people, if convicted, might be category C, while others would be of a higher category. Is it sensible to mix those remand prisoners? Given the closure of Longriggend, is there an opportunity to create new arrangements to stream prisoners in some way?
I am advised that, technically, all remand prisoners are category B. I take your point—there are varying degrees of alleged crime that give rise to their situation. It is my understanding that, following the closure of Longriggend, there will be better arrangements regarding categorisation. Mr Cameron may want to comment on that.
Perhaps I can sum up my point by saying that the drug user and the drug dealer are potentially cheek by jowl.
I understand that the new arrangements will try to address that.
Longriggend is unsatisfactory in several respects. Letham hall at Barlinnie, which is where the remaining prisoners from Longriggend will go when it closes, is a better destination in terms of care and separation. That will allow those prisoners awaiting deportation—a different category altogether—to go to Greenock, which is being refurbished. Currently, those prisoners are also mixed up with the remand prisoners at Longriggend.
Mr Wallace, the initiatives that you outlined are good, but the committee, perhaps coming from a different angle, wants to be satisfied that the end result is not detrimental to the Prison Service. I am sure that you would accept that that is part of our role.
That is absolutely fair. I want to ensure that it is not detrimental to securing prisoners.
That is where my concerns lie. At the moment, I am not convinced that this is not detrimental to the service. You have said that you have to find money from the justice budget to direct towards the initiatives. Does that money come only from the Prison Service budget or does it come from the budgets of other departments?
The money comes from several sources. There was some money from end-year flexibility in the courts budget, from the underspend on criminal injuries compensation—that is a demand-led budget—and from the capital modernisation programme. The £13 million is part of that money, but not all of it.
But primarily, the money comes from the Prison Service budget?
We take the total budget and draw resources from different areas. The total cumulative end-year flexibility for the Prison Service was £24 million, of which £13 million was allocated to other areas. There were other sources as well.
The committee was circulated with a copy of an e-mail, which said that there had been an unusually high order for bunk beds, leading to an assumption that there would be some doubling up in the remaining prisons. That causes us some concern. Such doubling up could lead to potentially dangerous situations. Other members have asked about the spare capacity that is left in the service, for example, in case of riots—I want to pin you down on that.
As I said earlier, contingency places are available in the event of emergencies.
What spare capacity will that leave? Can you say?
I will try to give you figures for that.
We can come back to the question.
Perhaps Mr Cameron would address the issue of the bunk beds, as that it is a detail on which I cannot comment.
As far as I am aware, that was a leaked document, and we are investigating where the leak came from. It is the Executive's policy not to comment on leaked documents.
You are sitting next to the minister who is responsible for freedom of information, Mr Cameron. In those circumstances, perhaps you might like to comment on the e-mail that we have all read.
No. We are still investigating the matter. Criminal issues might be involved, as well as employment ones, which might result in disciplinary action.
My colleague has suggested that that means it must be true.
I can make no comment on a leaked document.
It is important that we saw that e-mail, because it raises important issues.
I grant that there are operational issues, but I cannot comment on a leaked document.
I have no knowledge of the purchase of bunk beds.
Given the prison inspector's report, which shows that Greenock prison was 14 per cent overcrowded, and Mr Cameron's suggestion that prisoners from Longriggend would be moved to Greenock, perhaps that is where the bunk beds are going.
It was not a question about bunk beds. I want to know what spare capacity there is in the service for emergencies. We heard evidence last week from the Prison Staff Association, which said that the required capacity was about 100. What is your view on that?
The design capacity of the estate after rationalisation was 6,117. As I said, refurbishment is under way and there will be a review of the estate, which will consider the possibility of building new halls. Information about the places available in case of emergency is not given out. I hope that the committee will understand that that is for obvious security reasons. That is the advice that I have been given.
With respect, minister, the previous figure was given to us openly. Why the sudden coyness?
We heard evidence last week from the Prison Staff Association, that they had been told that the required capacity was in the region of 100.
I have read that, but I can neither confirm nor deny it.
That is a concern about which we feel we must press you. If we are to be satisfied about the closure of those prisons, we must be convinced that the capacity exists to cope with that scenario.
The important point is not the numbers, but whether the Prison Service believes it has the capacity to take account of emergencies. Mr Cameron confirms that it does.
We do.
I am running out of time. Other members have previously pressed Mr Wallace and Mr Cameron about the moving targets on slopping out. We are concerned about that. Would anything persuade you that we should go back to the first targets that we set?
A formal target was never set. The Prison Service has a number of targets that it is expected to meet. Ministers set those out annually and they appear in the Prison Service's corporate plan, but there has never been such a target for slopping out.
I had the opportunity to visit Low Moss, which has been represented to us as Scotland's most violent prison. We were concerned about the conditions when we went out there. Will there be any money in the budget to address the investment that Low Moss might need?
The Prison Service's announcement indicated that the condition of Low Moss is being examined. Efforts are being made to ensure that it is managed as effectively as possible. Recent investments have included the installation of closed circuit television cameras in dormitories. Low Moss will be included in the overall review of the estate to which I have referred.
The members who visited Low Moss think that more than CCTV cameras are required. The dormitory arrangement must also be examined. The evidence we got when we visited was that that is part of the problem.
The condition of Low Moss will be examined as part of the prison estate review that is about to take place.
Four members are still waiting to ask questions. We will not get on to the other issues that we might have covered had there been time. Will the four members please ask a question each so that we can proceed quickly?
I am interested in prison numbers. I do not share the view that those establishments should be closed. Although I understand the argument and it seems rational, I still worry about the future.
I was wondering what you were going to say when you said that the courts could be told what to do. I thought that we were going down a rather dangerous road. It is invidious to make those projections, given that it is not within the Executive's power to determine what the courts will do. We must ensure that a range of sentences is available to the courts.
Courts do what they are told; that is the purpose of legislation. Why do you not legislate to ensure that fine defaulters do not go to jail any more? Prison governors would welcome such prisoners being cleared out. We should take radical steps to instruct the sentencers that it is no longer appropriate in certain situations to give a jail sentence.
I cannot say that that is part of the Executive's legislative programme, because it is not. Mr Jackson has raised an interesting subject for further reflection, but an alternative to jail for fine defaulting has been in place since 1998 and is available throughout Scotland. One hopes that sheriffs are not only aware of it but that they feel that that is a more appropriate disposal than sending someone to jail.
We welcome your comments about witness support. What can you tell us about what you will do for victim support? I think I quote you directly as saying that it is "notoriously difficult" to predict prison numbers. If that is the case, why have you relied on the statisticians' figures, which have been considered erroneous until now?
In answer to the first question, we intend to rollout the witness support schemes from the three pilot schemes—the pilot schemes might total six, as we intended to double the number and I cannot remember off the top of my head whether the other three are in place yet. They are run with substantial co-operation from Victim Support Scotland, which will be very much involved in the rollout to the whole of Scotland.
Victim Support Scotland is also very short of cash.
A sum of £2 million is going into this.
Is that for witness support or for Victim Support?
It is for the witness support scheme—bear in mind that many victims of crime end up as witnesses and must give evidence. The experience of the schemes that are already in place in Kirkcaldy, Ayr and Hamilton has been very positive. The witnesses have someone there who is independent of the legal system. That person is a friendly face who can talk them through the process, identify some of the issues and problems and tell them what they are likely to see when they enter the court. People who have used those schemes have found them valuable and worthwhile, which is why I have said that it would be good to roll the scheme out throughout Scotland. That is what we intend to do.
But you rely on them.
Well, they are there. The concern expressed earlier was that the figure would be 6,700 in 2004. Those levels were predicted two years ago, but have not been reached. In fact, the figure has fallen a long way short of that. There is some stabilisation. We are promoting alternatives to custody, so we suggest that you should be cautious about accepting that the prison population will be 6,700 in 2004.
In that case, are you planning for the failure of the drugs enforcement agency?
No, certainly not. The drugs enforcement agency represents an important policy—Angus MacKay unveiled its structure today. I know that the follow-up to your question will be, "If it is successful, will you have more people in prison?" It is a point that Mr Gallie has made. However, I assure you that the kind of drug dealers at whom the drugs enforcement agency is particularly directed will not be going to the open prison at Penninghame or the category C prison at Dungavel—they will be high-security prisoners. Mr Cameron says that we will find room for them.
I sincerely hope so.
An important part of the Government's policy for tackling drug abuse is to gather intelligence and target those higher up the drug supply chain to cut the supply. It is also about education, health and trying to reduce the number of petty drug offenders—
Minister, if you do not mind me interrupting, we have all heard the PR for the drugs enforcement agency. I would rather concentrate on prisons for the final few minutes. Lyndsay, do you have another specific issue related to prisons?
I am concerned about whistle-blowers—those who try to bring us helpful information—because of the risks that they are likely to run.
That is a reasonable comment that other members of the committee will wish to take on board. One or two other people wanted to ask questions, but I do not think that we have—
If they are quick, I can try to answer them.
Thank you, minister. I can go to Maureen, then.
My question has been covered.
Tricia?
I am curious about targets, aspirations and ministerial decisions with regard to the ending of slopping out by 2004-05. We were first told that that was not a target, but merely an aspiration. Yet, when Mr Cameron gave evidence to the committee in September, he said that it was a ministerial decision that the priority for the Scottish Prison Service was to end slopping out by 2004-05. What is the difference between a ministerial decision that that was the priority for the whole Prison Service, and a target—which might now be an aspiration?
As I tried to explain before, targets are formally agreed between ministers and the Scottish Prison Service. I am sure that I set them out in a parliamentary written answer. They are formal targets that relate to a number of points such as, for example, that there should be no security—
But is a target more important than an aspiration? Is it more important than a ministerial decision? When was the ministerial decision changed?
Targets are a formal part—and perhaps this is where there has been some confusion—of the relationship between ministers and the Scottish Prison Service, which is an executive agency of the Government. Mr Cameron and his staff are required formally to meet those targets. Targets differ from what have been described as aspirations. I indicated in my first answer to Mr Barrie that I wish to see the end of slopping out—refurbishments that are still to be carried out will allow progress to be made on that. I have said candidly to the committee that decisions are still to be made about whether to build a few halls or to refurbish existing ones. The ability to decant prisoners, pending that work being undertaken, depends on the number of prisoners in a particular category. I cannot say for certain whether that target—sorry, aspiration—of ending slopping out by 2005 will be met. I would not be doing a service to the committee if I were to try to pretend otherwise. I hope that we can continue to make progress towards ending slopping out.
When Mr Cameron gave us evidence earlier, he posed a question to us, as you did earlier this evening, about what work we would like to be carried out. When we talked about the condition of Low Moss, Mr Cameron said that no work had been done because the night sanitation programme was the priority. He asked what we wanted the Scottish Prison Service to do and whether we wanted it to cut the night sanitation programme. You are constantly challenging us on our priorities, but your priorities and targets seem to change from month to month.
Those decisions were made by the board with regard to the criteria that I have already described. Retention of Low Moss was favoured because it is convenient for visiting families. That is an important point. It has a low cost per prisoner place, industrial productivity is high and economically advantageous and it provides a high proportion of category C places. To put this in context, we are talking about—
It has night sanitation.
It has night sanitation—another factor about Low Moss of which I think the committee would approve. I think I am right in saying that the number of prison places lost by the closure of Low Moss would have been considerably greater than the number lost by the closure of Dungavel. The concerns that the committee has expressed to me today point more in the direction of the closure of Dungavel than the closure of Low Moss.
Low Moss is in the most appalling condition. Everybody acknowledges how appalling Low Moss is. One reason why the money was not spent on Low Moss was that the priority was the night sanitation programme. Apart from the ditching of the night sanitation programme, Low Moss is in an appalling condition, although we have £13 million that could have been used to improve Low Moss in the past. Are you telling us that you are going to find the money to do something about Low Moss now?
I am telling you several things. First, the condition of Low Moss will be examined in the overall review of the whole prison estate, to which I have already referred. Secondly, that £13 million was not going to be used to improve conditions or the fabric at Low Moss.
That money will not be used for anything now, as it has been removed.
You asked me what the money was going to be used for before. It was going to be used—
It is not being used for anything.
Let me go back to square one. That £13 million was there, and there was going to be a rationalisation of the prison estate over a longer period. That money would have been required to pay salaries and exit packages over that period. That money has been removed to fund several of the other priorities that I have mentioned. Therefore, the rationalisation of the prison estate, the reduction in the prison staff and the putting together of exit packages are being accelerated. It is a question of timing, rather than of what was going to be done. That £13 million was not earmarked for extending night sanitation. It was there to allow the rationalisation of the prison estate to take place over a longer period.
With respect, minister, £13 million was not spent. You might have had plans for that money in the longer, the shorter or the medium term; however, the fact is that that £13 million, which could have been spent on the likes of Low Moss, on a night sanitation programme, was not spent, and has now been lost to the Prison Service as a whole.
That money was not going to be spent on the refurbishment of Low Moss. The capital budget has not been cut. The baseline budget of the Prison Service has not been cut. That £13 million has been spent on other priorities in the justice department, such as establishing a drugs enforcement agency, tackling domestic violence and establishing a witness support scheme for all Scotland's sheriff courts. Those are proper priorities. Government is about making choices. Those are the choices that we have made, on which the committee will, no doubt, want to pass judgment.
Are those still going to be the changes in two months' time? The priority of the Scottish Prison Service was to end slopping out by 2004-05, but that was turned on its end within months. Are the policies that you are now outlining going to be overturned in another couple of months?
I will check the record carefully. Although I have clearly stated that I want slopping out to end, I do not recall making a ministerial decision on that. I am fairly confident that I did not; however, I shall stand corrected if anyone can show me the record of my making that decision.
So Mr Cameron was wrong when he told this committee, on 14 September:
I have said that I did not make that ministerial decision. It may have been indicated in the past that that was a target—I am sorry—an aim. It was not a formal target.
An aspiration, perhaps?
It was an aim and an aspiration, and I still want that to happen. However, the £13 million was not going to be used for that purpose. The ending of slopping out may be delayed, not because part of that £13 million was going to be used for actual works, but because, as I tried to explain, the issue relates to whether prisoners can be moved around while essential work is being done. The capital budget for refurbishment of our prisons has remained intact.
The Executive document "Making it Work Together" says:
We still expect an improvement in the tackling of drug abuse in prisons. There has been no cutback in the rehabilitation budget.
Members have no other questions. I thank the minister for coming today. I suspect that there may be further issues that the committee will want to explore; however, those do not involve the minister at this stage.
If Clive Fairweather wants to come back to the committee, of course we should listen to him. We should probably listen to the prison visitors as well, as they go into prisons a lot and approach their work from an angle that is different to that of either management or staff. It would be useful to hear from them. I cannot help but think that we should try to wind up this piece of work. If we are going to produce a report, we should do so fairly soon after hearing that evidence. We have so much to do that we should try to close this subject.
Members will recall that we took a decision in principle to move on to separate issues—women offenders and young offenders—after we had concluded our consideration of this particular area. That will be a longer-term issue and we need to find a way of finalising this part of it. In the normal course of events, and had it not been for the Executive's announcement, we would have finalised our work some time ago.
I completely agree with Gordon. I was approached by a representative of the prison visitors. Perhaps that is why that organisation wrote to the clerk. Gordon may be able to confirm that prison visitors can get into prisons any old time, which gives them access to what goes on.
Are members happy to invite Clive Fairweather and representatives of the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments, however we manage to do that? The organisation is decentralised, so it might be a little awkward to arrange witnesses.
Hearing evidence from the prison visitors will be as near as we will be able to get to interviewing prisoners themselves.
Also, they have the advantage of being lay people and therefore they may have views that are closer to committee members' views.
I am happy with that, but I would like us to take on board the point that Christine Grahame and Gordon Jackson raised. At some point pretty soon I would like us to consider where we will focus our attention in future. Having heard the evidence, I have my own view about that. I would like to discuss that at the next meeting, to see whether there is any consensus. We cannot go on for ever.
Whether we will have time at the next meeting to have that discussion is a moot point, although we will try to do that shortly thereafter in order to pull together a report that is reasonably reflective of committee members' views on this issue. We will proceed on that basis.
Meeting continued in private until 17:40.