Item 6 on the agenda is the prison estates review. We will be taking oral evidence from Roger Houchin, former governor of HM Prison Barlinnie. Welcome to the committee and thank you for coming to give evidence to us. Your experience and long service at Barlinnie will be useful to us. I remind members that we took evidence previously from the current governors of Barlinnie and Peterhead prisons, who had been in post for a short time only. I will start by asking about your career in the Scottish Prison Service and the position that you now hold.
I have worked for the SPS since 1973 and have been a governor in charge of a prison since 1982. I worked at Penninghame and Longriggend. For a couple of years in the 1980s, I had a fellowship in Oxford looking into human rights issues. When I came back, I was head of training for the Prison Service from 1990 to 1995. From 1995 until September last year, I was governor of Barlinnie. I now work in Glasgow Caledonian University doing work for the Prison Service and some other work.
I would like to clear something out of the way. I do not want to insult the present governor of Barlinnie, who has been before us and who is a worthy gentleman, but rumour had it that you were replaced because hard men were being replaced by softer governors so that the prison estates review would run more easily. What is your view of that?
It does not accord with my understanding of what happened. I am 58 and I retire in two years' time. A couple of years ago, I gave notice that I did not want to stop work at 60. Last summer, I said that I was looking to find another career and Tony Cameron helpfully said that, if I carried on doing work for the SPS, he would enable that transition. That was my perception of what happened.
I put the point to you simply because someone else would have done.
I was flattered by the comments in the newspapers.
I cannot remember what I said.
If staff tell you that communication is inadequate for their needs, you have to listen. I do not think that the survey implied that we were not attentive to the problem or that we did not devote a lot of time and energy to improving communication. The survey took place at an enormously difficult time for the Prison Service, which was confronting issues that it had not confronted for many years. Barlinnie's position was not helped by the press, which repeatedly reported that the prison would be closed or sold to Tesco. However much I tried to communicate to staff that I had been reassured that closure was not on the agenda, the fact that such stories were regularly in the press undermined what I said. Communications in a big organisation are often difficult; in that period, they were especially difficult.
Now that Barlinnie appears to be saved—at least in the proposals following the consultation—do you feel that morale will improve?
I think that Barlinnie prison now has a clearer idea of what it has to do and what its position is. That will have benefits for staff and for communications in the place.
Clive Fairweather's report shows that staff turnover at Barlinnie in 2000-01 was 9 per cent. That figure is similar in other SPS prisons such as those at Greenock and Edinburgh. Can you explain the turnover? The figure seems high to me. Is it high?
No. In the SPS in general, and in Barlinnie in particular, there are low rates of turnover. Before coming to this meeting, I had a look at the figures for last year. In Barlinnie, turnover was about 6 per cent. I think that seven junior members of staff—operational staff, that is—left the service. They will all have left for reasons other than retirement. Their position was especially difficult. They were recruited between 1995 and 2000 at a time when it was expected that they would move rapidly through the service into promoted posts. However, because of a decrease in the size of the organisation, that did not happen and they became stuck. A number of them are bright and able people who are now, understandably, looking for careers elsewhere. However, the figure of seven people out of about 100 is not enormously high.
We are concerned not only with numbers, but with the quality of the people who are leaving the service. That is an important point.
Yes. The loss of such people is worrying for the SPS and has been disappointing for us as an organisation. Following a previous reorganisation in which the pay band of operations staff was created, Barlinnie recruited 113 new staff over a period of slightly more than two years. Some of the people who were recruited at the beginning of that period made rapid progress, but since then, because of the closure of prisons—Barlinnie has had to absorb staff from Longriggend and Dungavel—people have become, as they see it, stuck in their careers. They have to decide whether they wish to stay in the service or whether they wish to leave. However, the rate of staff turnover at Barlinnie would be seen as very low in most organisations.
It is proposed that the capacity of Barlinnie be reduced to around 500 prisoners. How would that affect the staff and prisoners at Barlinnie?
The report suggests a large decrease in staffing of 260. However, it gives staff the assurance that that decrease will not involve redundancies.
The report also says that there will be no impact on staff cash payments. What does that mean?
I am not competent to answer that question.
I take the statement to refer to pensions. If the 260 staff from Barlinnie relocate—say, to the private sector—they may get the same pay, but they will have no pensions. Is that what the report means?
You will have to raise that issue with someone else.
That is fine.
That depends on the time scale. The report is not clear on the time scale for the proposed changes, particularly at Barlinnie, although it says that the changes are likely to take place at the end of the process, which may be six or so years from now. Barlinnie has an annual staff turnover of 6 per cent, which equates to about 40 people a year and to about 240 people over the whole period. During the five years that I was there, Barlinnie managed huge fluctuations, as we opened and closed halls for refurbishment, without redundancies. Sometimes we were over complement and for very brief periods we went under complement. However, those periods were very brief indeed and the shortfalls tended to be in particular positions. No organisation finds that easy, but the situation has been managed for a number of years. There are likely to be five or six years within which to manage the decrease in the staff population at Barlinnie. I am not saying that that is easy, but it is manageable.
Do the staff operating at Barlinnie live in or around the area?
They live in the central belt.
I am wondering whether entire families may need to be relocated.
I live outside Stirling, where many staff live. Many staff also live in Ayrshire. The catchment area for staff is a large part of the central belt.
The report says that one of the reasons for investing significantly in Barlinnie is its location. Do you believe that the prison's location is important? I have already touched on the issue of staff. You have indicated that it is possible to commute to and from Barlinnie on major roads and by rail. How important is that for staff and inmates?
It is most important for a prison of Barlinnie's type—a local prison in which there is a great deal of movement between the community and the prison. The argument about location is fundamental. Much of the work that is done in Barlinnie is done in concert with social work departments, the local health board and health trusts, the police and the courts. Location is an important issue for local prisons.
The estates review considers a number of options for improving conditions at the prison, including the full refurbishment of halls, rebuilding on the site and the retention of the fully refurbished hall coupled with the building of a new house block, which seems to be the preferred option. Could you give us an idea of the advantages and disadvantages of those options?
I will start by talking about the adequacy of the existing buildings. There are five main halls, of which one has been refurbished. That one—D hall—will last for many years and is a good prison facility. It comprises four 50-place units that have been invaluable in allowing Barlinnie to handle vulnerable prisoners and those prisoners who have set about seriously trying to address their drug-using habit and are prepared to continue to do that with support. At one time, it was used to manage sex offenders, but when the young offenders arrived from Longriggend, we had to move the sex offenders to another small area where they are managed independently of the rest of the prison.
What does "unitised" mean?
The hall has not been subdivided into four units. The subdivision into units greatly helps the management of the prison. Because of costs and the fact that the future of the prison was uncertain, that step has not yet been taken. The conditions under which another hall will be raised to the standard of that hall are being finalised at the moment. The other two large halls have no integral sanitation and there are no plans to install any.
Which one is that?
It is at the top end of the prison on the right. Beyond the top end of the halls, there are some low buildings with old-fashioned, asbestos roofing. Those buildings are physically inadequate for their purpose and are probably beyond the end of their proper life. They provide a large area in which there could be redevelopment.
What are they used for at the moment?
They are used for some workshops and for evening recreation for people from the big halls. They are poor-quality accommodation for those purposes.
What about the workshops with asbestos roofs and the inadequate education facilities? How do those issues fit into the picture?
Those issues are part of the reason why the report suggests that the prison might be used for remand prisoners, although that is not definite. Less is expected of the services that are provided for remand prisoners than is expected of those that are provided for convicted prisoners. For example, an education service would be expected for remand prisoners, but it would be more limited than the service that is expected for convicted prisoners. Further redevelopment would have to take place in the house blocks. The SPS design for house blocks, which is going ahead in Polmont and in Edinburgh, includes more facilities, group-work rooms and offices than the Kilmarnock model for house blocks does. Following the SPS model, which is more expensive, several of the facilities that would otherwise be provided in remote buildings would be provided in the house blocks.
That is interesting. I think that I read somewhere in the reports that the SPS has not designed a prison for 50 or 60 years.
Thirty years, I think.
The SPS has expertise in building house blocks, however.
I am a bit out of touch, but I understand that the contract for a new house block in Edinburgh has recently started and that one is about to start in Polmont. Those have been specified by the SPS and are being built in the private sector. So, yes, there is expertise in designing house blocks in the SPS. However, the SPS has not opened a prison since Shotts prison was opened in the late 1970s.
We are not totally sure what the difference is between designing a house block and designing a prison.
Another problem with the Barlinnie site is the fact that movement inside the prison is, as you will have seen, carried out in the open, within a large space that is secured only by a perimeter fence. You will have seen prisoners walking with prison officers lining the route that they walk. That is a hugely expensive way of moving prisoners. If you visit Kilmarnock, you will see that the distances that prisoners have to travel between different parts of the prison are shorter and that the prisoners are all moved within secure corridors. That is also the case in Shotts, which has a more modern design, and Glenochil. If Barlinnie were to be fully modernised, it would need extensive development of covered and secure walkways to avoid the additional costs of providing staff to line areas that people walk along and the lack of respect that goes with that. That is not a good way of managing a prison.
That happens in Kilmarnock prison, too—prison officers stand in lines, although not in close lines, as prisoners move about.
There will always be prison staff who are there to observe, but if you compare the number of prison staff who are required whenever the prisoners go to work in Barlinnie with the number required in Kilmarnock, it is—
But you made the point that the modern design of the SPS house block was of better quality than the one in Kilmarnock. I think that I picked that up.
I do not think that I said that it was better. The solution that was reached by the SPS includes more facilities within the house block itself.
Is that better?
It is just another way of doing things. There are two ways in which what we are talking about can be done; we can either move people—
But you are the expert, so I am asking you what you think.
I do not think that one way is particularly better than the other. If the facilities are within the house block, arguably there can be freer movement between the facilities and where people stay. If the facilities are outside the house block and technology can be used to supervise movement, as at Kilmarnock, people can be given freer access. A modern prison design uses things like—
I have seen it all.
It uses cards so that people can move reasonably freely. There are different solutions.
Prisoners do not need to move about so much if facilities are in the house block. That is the point that I am getting at.
I am not prepared to say whether I think that one way is better or worse. People sometimes like going for a wee walk.
Will the proposals deal with the problem of night sanitation within an acceptable time scale? You said that the process might take six years. Is that the best and shortest estimate? Might it take longer than that?
That is the report's estimate, which seems to be reasonable. The report makes it clear that the estimate makes certain assumptions about planning permission and the availability of sites. If those assumptions are correct, the experience of the private sector is that it will be good at building the buildings to time—much better than the public sector.
You are saying that the estimate depends on the private sector building the buildings.
The time scale of six years is reported for the private sector.
The figure of 10 or 12 years was quoted for the public sector doing the work.
The argument behind that estimate is in the report. The time scale would depend on how the public sector did the work. One problem is that the SPS does not have staff with the necessary experience to design and build a prison.
So if the building work was done by the public sector, we would be looking at 10 or 12 years until the night sanitation issue was sorted at Barlinnie.
Yes, that is what I read from the report.
I understand that surveys were done on the top 10 issues for the prison population and that—at least some years ago—sanitation was item 7. In other words, for the prison population, sanitation is not as big an issue as it is for some of us outside prison—important though it undoubtedly is. Can you confirm that?
I cannot confirm that. However, if I had been asked, I would have said that night sanitation was well down the list of priorities. I do not have it in my head that it was number 7, but what you say is consistent with my understanding.
So, although sanitation is on the top 10 list of issues for prisoners in general, it is comparatively far down the list.
The surveys that you refer to were done in 1992 or 1993. At that time, sanitation was not at the top of prisoners' priorities. Their top priority is always access to their families.
Night sanitation in prisons has been an issue for the committee. For the past two or three years, we have been concerned about progress on that issue.
Overcrowding has a different impact on different functions of the prison. The impact for remand prisoners is high, especially in Barlinnie, which does not have integral sanitation. That means that the staff must open prisoners' cells to move prisoners for showers, for going to the toilet and for giving them food. Broadly speaking, if there is 30 per cent overcrowding, it takes 30 per cent longer every time that the staff need to do that. Overcrowding means that the regime of a remand hall is much more difficult to operate, especially when the prison does not have integral sanitation.
As well as the lack of integral sanitation, is there a problem with the fact that there is no power in the cells and that prisoners have no way of washing their hands after they have been to the toilet?
In Barlinnie, they can certainly wash their hands after they have been to the toilet. The toilets always have washhand basins.
The committee heard evidence from the current governor of Barlinnie that overcrowding also means that untried prisoners are housed with convicted prisoners. What management and staffing issues does that raise?
There is a requirement that, as far as is possible, convicted and remand prisoners should be kept separated. We do not like having to manage them in the same area. Because of that recurrent problem, we arranged that remand prisoners would go to a hall for an induction period for the first four days, if I remember correctly. During that time, they would learn about the prison and about their rights. They were also told what facilities—modest though they were—would be available to them in the prison. It was possible to manage that situation reasonably well, but that is far from being the ideal.
The review suggests that, in the long term, prisoner numbers will continue to rise. I presume that that will have an impact.
Barlinnie has a long-standing problem in that its nominal role is to accept people from the court whose sentence is more than four years and to move them to a long-term prison.
Of course, recidivism—or what is known as the revolving door—is also a problem. What programmes were introduced in Barlinnie to reduce the incidence of recidivism?
I am quite proud to say that Barlinnie delivers more accredited programmes than any other prison in Scotland. The committee will be aware of the process of accreditation of programmes in the Scottish Prison Service.
Some time ago, I visited the sex offenders unit at Barlinnie. I understand that that unit deals primarily with short-term prisoners, while most long-term prisoners are moved to Peterhead. Is that correct?
Yes. For people to take part in the programme, they have to satisfy certain levels of need and risk and must have served a certain period of time in prison. Even though at any given time Barlinnie has about 50 short-term sex offenders, it was never possible to fill the programme from that group. As a result, we offered a service to long-term prisoners, and three or four long-term prisoners have taken part in the programme.
I also understand that the sex offenders unit, which is a separate building from the rest of the prison, runs the STOP programme. However, you seem to be suggesting that that programme is different from the STOP programme that is run at Peterhead prison.
No. The sex offender programme—the STOP 2000 programme—was accredited by the SPS accreditation panel earlier this year and is run at Peterhead. Exactly the same programme is run at Barlinnie. Unlike Peterhead, Barlinnie is not what is called a monoculture prison—its population is not made up solely of sex offenders. However, the unit at Barlinnie is purely for sex offenders and it runs the same programme.
I visited both the sex offenders unit at Barlinnie and Peterhead prison, and found that the atmosphere in the two places is somewhat different. I do not intend to slight the staff in the Barlinnie unit, but I felt that they had a different attitude from the staff at Peterhead. For example, I was surprised to find that staff at Peterhead do not cut anything out of the newspapers that come into the halls; at Barlinnie, the staff cut out things that might be inappropriate for offenders to see or read.
I have to bow to your perception on that. The training that the staff who work in the sex offenders unit in Barlinnie receive is equivalent to that in Peterhead, as is the importance that the staff attach to the job that they do. They work there through choice and have worked efficiently and effectively in running the unit. If, as you say, you detected a difference, I simply have to acknowledge that.
I spoke to some of the prisoners in Peterhead, some of whom had been to other prisons in Scotland. They felt that Peterhead was somewhat different. They felt that the relationship with the staff and the treatment programme were entirely different. One of their concerns about sex offenders units, which are effectively prisons within prisons, was that, in such units, they continued to feel under pressure even though they were, in effect, in a separate prison. There was also considerable concern that their families had been subject to abuse when visiting such prisons, because they were taken to a different area and other families therefore knew that they were the families of sex offenders.
That would not have been the case in Barlinnie. The families are not taken to different areas.
How does that situation relate to your experience in the Scottish Prison Service?
The development of work with sex offenders in Barlinnie has been taking place for seven or eight years. Let me trace one of the elements of that development. Initially, as is the case in most prisons that are not able to make a special arrangement for the management of sex offenders, such offenders spent a lot of their time in their cells without having access to normal facilities. We were determined that that would not happen in Barlinnie.
Moving prisoners—particularly those at the top end—into the general population has been a problem. I understand that at Peterhead there was even a problem in moving someone to an open prison. Do you disagree with Professor Bill Marshall who, in a report that was commissioned by the SPS, said that the best environment in which to house sex offenders is a sex offenders-only prison and that in attempting to do so the SPS is
I would not regard the view that Professor Marshall expressed as authoritative, although I understand why he said that. When we address constructively the offending behaviour of sex offenders, it is important to take great care to ensure that they are in a safe environment and that they have proper access to all the normal facilities of prison life. It is extremely difficult to provide that other than by having a specialist unit within a prison. I understand that some problems remain, because where there are differential units within a prison some members of staff do not always understand the work that other staff members do.
Were there any assaults on sex offenders during your time at Barlinnie? How common were such assaults?
I have no memory of any assaults on sex offenders, but I would hate to say that there were no such assaults, only for you to find that there had been two assaults. It was certainly not a problem. In relation to assault, any prisoner would have been safer being housed in the sex offenders unit than being housed in the big open halls of Barlinnie.
Was there ever movement that took prisoners in the unit into areas where other inmates were? Did other inmates have opportunities to be in contact with sex offenders or was the unit hermetically sealed?
The unit was not hermetically sealed. Contact with other inmates was not a problem. In general, sex offenders were not subjected to assaults.
How long has the STOP programme been running? Did you say that it has been running for just the past year? There were programmes before that.
There is some confusion on that. There was a programme called STOP, which was developed at Peterhead. That programme is history—Bill Rattray is in a better position than I am to tell you that. The programme that is run in the Scottish Prison Service is called STOP 2000. That programme was developed in England and Wales.
That is the one that I am talking about.
When that programme was brought to Scotland, the Peterhead staff and the Barlinnie staff were trained at the same time. Barlinnie had run a programme that had been developed by the psychological service in the SPS, whereas Peterhead had developed its STOP programme—which was not STOP 2000. Broadly speaking, all those programmes share the same intellectual basis; they are not dissimilar.
Which is the accredited programme—the one that has won the award? I want to work out which STOP programme I am talking about.
STOP 2000 is—
Has Peterhead won the award for its adaptation—
Yes, Peterhead now runs STOP 2000, which was developed by the relevant unit of the Prison Service in England and Wales. In effect, the Scottish Prison Service was licensed to run the programme, which is the one that is run in Barlinnie.
I know. I will read the report.
The STOP 2000 programme lasts for about 170 contact hours and, in broad terms, takes about nine months to deliver. However, the programme was designed as part of a suite of programmes. If people are in prison for longer periods of time, booster programmes can be used. In England, programmes have been developed for people who present a lesser risk than do very high-risk, predatory sex offenders. At the moment, that programme is not available in Scotland. When it is made available, it is likely to be more useful to Barlinnie prison than it would be to Peterhead prison.
For future reference and clarification, will you confirm that the programme that we know as STOP 2000 in England and Wales was called the sex offender treatment programme—SOTP?
Yes.
That was a strange question.
I will try to answer each of the questions in turn.
What about young offenders?
Bill Rattray is probably best placed to answer that question. I understand that Polmont young offenders institution has recently started running a sex offender programme, but I am not really on top of that. I see people nodding.
What happens to people who refuse to take part in the programme?
We encourage people to join the programme. Unlike Peterhead, we have not developed ways of working with people who resist facing up to their offending.
So Peterhead is doing something with people who are in denial, but that is not happening at Barlinnie.
It is not happening in the systematic way in which it is happening at Peterhead.
I would like to ask two questions on another subject.
Before we move on, Donald Gorrie has a question about the new prisons.
The document that has been given to us has produced a doctrine that the ideal size for a new prison is 700 places. Do you think that that is the right figure?
I find that a fairly abstract argument. If someone asked me what was a good size for a prison, I would have great difficulty in answering. Seven hundred is a manageable size. However, I would have liked the report to be clearer on how that figure will translate into the supply of custodial services to the greater Glasgow catchment area. That is why I say that the figure of 700 is quite abstract. It is a sensible figure for a large prison. How it translates into the provision of prisons for Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh is another issue, which needs to be thought through more.
Would remedial activity with prisoners in smaller prisons be more successful? The minister responsible for justice in one enlightened European country said that it had no prison with more than 350 places and thought that it was ridiculous to go higher than that.
Can you clarify which enlightened European country you are referring to?
It was Norway.
Different prison services have different cultures and traditions. Traditionally, Scandinavia has had very small prisons. One can therefore see why the Scandinavians would be resistant to having larger prisons. Whether smaller prisons are a good idea depends very much on how those prisons are managed.
How important is the person-to-person relationship that exists in a prison?
It is hugely important.
We have a tradition of large prisons. Do you think that we have a good tradition?
It is perfectly possible to run large prisons with good relationships between individuals. One development that has taken place in Barlinnie in the past few years is for each hall to be run independently. When we established the four units in D hall, each had permanent staff that worked in that hall and specialised in such work. It is perfectly possible to do that in a large prison.
Is it fair to assume that a prison that is one third overcrowded operates its remedial activities one third worse?
No. In Barlinnie, we did not overcrowd any of our prisoner programmes. They ran with the number of people with which they were designed to run. Overcrowding such programmes was never an issue.
I presume that you needed one third more staff to run the programmes for one third more inmates.
I will qualify what I said. The provision of educational services was more limited the more overcrowded that the prison became. It was more difficult for people to enlist for educational services. The problems are that the building at Barlinnie in which the educational service is provided is restrictive and that the size of the service is limited.
From your experience, would many of the people who were sent to Barlinnie have done better by doing some vigorous community service activity instead?
I doubt that. There is no evidence that such people would have done better. There is evidence that that would have cost the community much less. Effective programmes for working with offenders can be run in the community, but my perception is that they are no more developed than the programmes in the Scottish Prison Service.
Donald Gorrie asked you about personal relationships in prisons and contact between inmates and prison officers. How important is that?
That is the most important aspect to running a prison.
That is interesting. My concern about private prisons is that they will reduce staffing levels and use technology instead of people. I accept what you say about lines of officers forming walls to allow prisoners to move from A to B, but are you concerned that using technology to cut costs in a prison will reduce that important personal contact? Staffing is one of the dearest elements.
I must accept the evidence of HM chief inspector of prisons, who has not been uncritical of the private prison but has consistently recorded the quality of the relationships between staff and prisoners there. In my two visits to Kilmarnock prison, I have been impressed by the staff's positive attitude. I note in the inspector's report the concerns over very low levels of staffing at certain times, leading to people feeling unsafe. If people feel unsafe in their work, the relationships that they can sustain will necessarily deteriorate.
If there are fewer prison officers to build such relationships, it seems to me that the service will lose something very important. I am thinking of the comparison between simply making sure that things are secure, with people locked up and away from the public, and actually building up some kind of relationship with prisoners with a view to helping them to mend their ways.
I cannot agree with your first remark as a general rule for running prisons. In too many prisons over the years, I have seen a large number of prison officers who do not engage with prisoners. I also want to put on record that it is damaging if the number of officers is inadequate and if they feel unsafe. I would, however, hesitate to state general rules.
The point that you make about prison officers feeling under siege, unhappy or ill at ease is important. Such feelings will affect any relationships.
Does Mr Houchin feel that special units could play a greater role in the Scottish prison system?
I will answer that in two ways. The Scottish Prison Service, at the beginning of the 1990s, had something like 300 or 350 prisoners who were managed in conditions of enormous security and restriction, largely at Peterhead. We introduced a collection of small units to manage those prisoners and to get them back into the general population. The use of small units for that purpose has been very helpful. However, at the moment the SPS does not find it necessary to maintain such a system.
May I also ask—
Very briefly, James.
Yes. Should—
You may ask a tiny question because I want to wind up in about two minutes.
Should visiting facilities be specially structured to prevent drugs entering prisons?
Yes. One of the successes of Barlinnie in the recent past has been the design of the new visiting facility. We built in very high-quality security measures at the front so that we could allow a low level of staffing at the back, thus allowing relaxed visits. Because of the design of that facility, Barlinnie has consistently had lower levels of positive mandatory drug test results than other prisons. Planning for that must be built in with the brickwork, the technology and the staffing.
Stewart Stevenson, do you have a small question?
My question is slightly larger than my last one, but it is not big.
I am not sure that that question probes my expert knowledge as a manager of prisons.
You were talking about numbers.
When the figure of 700 prisoners was raised earlier, I said that I thought that the argument was rather abstract. By far the more important argument relates to the question of providing prison services to various communities and catchment areas. Small prisons and large prisons can both be managed.
Now that Stewart Stevenson has had his point included in the Official Report, we can all look at it later on.
Like my colleague, I am flattered but must point out that the reality is different. A governorship would normally last for three to five years. I managed to get six years at Peterhead. After that time, I was pleased to be asked if I would take on a project that related to an area that I have been interested in for a number of years. If I had not taken on that project at that time, I would have regretted it later. It was a career opportunity that I simply could not pass up.
So it was a coincidence? Did we read too much into the fact that, at the same time, two highly respected governors were leaving prisons whose future was contentious?
I acknowledge what it must have looked like.
You said that the opportunity was highly tempting. Were you made "an offer you couldn't refuse"?
It would be quite unfair to put it that way. The area is one in which I have been interested for a number of years and have studied academically. Consequently, when I was given the opportunity to carry on that work and undertake a project for the whole of the Scottish Prison Service as opposed to just Peterhead, I believed that I would regret it if I did not take that chance.
I wanted to give you the opportunity to put into the public domain what your view is, as opposed to what some of the speculation was and what some of us were thinking at the time. Can you tell us a little bit about your career prior to your moving and exactly what you are doing now, please?
Certainly. I started in the Scottish Prison Service in 1976 as an officer at Peterhead. I then moved through the grades. My first governorship was at HMP Aberdeen in 1991. I moved to Peterhead in 1996 as the governor and left in October last year.
It disturbs me that I cannot ask you what you are doing. Is it related to sex offender programmes?
No, not at all. It is an operational project for the Scottish Prison Service. It is specifically a risk management operations project that relates to our organisational requirement for corporate governance. It is specifically concerned with operational risk.
It may not be relevant to what we are doing, but we may come back to that. You were pretty key in developing the sex offender programme, were you not?
No. In fact the—
You were not. That will do.
When I arrived at Peterhead in 1996, the programme was already well developed. By 1996, the work of the staff at Peterhead had been acknowledged through, for example, the Butler award. My job was to continue, develop and build on that work, and we increased the population of the prison and implemented a variety of measures to improve on that work.
Please do.
When I moved to Peterhead as the governor, I learned quickly that I was dealing with a different staff group. They are a skilled, committed, loyal bunch of people. Over and above that, the staff of Peterhead probably took professionalism among prison officers to a new level. During the time that I spent at Peterhead, it was a privilege for me to work with that staff group. I wanted to put that on the record, in case I did not get the opportunity to do so later.
I am delighted that you did. Those of us who visited Peterhead would endorse what you have just said. Are you able to provide any information on prison population trends for long-term, male, adult sex offenders?
I am sorry, but I do not have command of that information. We know that more and more people are being prosecuted. I think that that has something to do with the fact that sex offending has become far more of a public issue. There is far more public awareness of sex offending and, consequently, people who were victims several years ago are coming forward. The numbers are growing almost as a catch-up, if I can put it that way.
That is fair.
That is what we are experiencing at the moment.
As the convener said, we gained a good impression of the morale and dedication of the Peterhead staff; indeed, you have said the same. However, the report from the inspector of prisons suggests that uncertainty was causing low morale. Will you comment on that?
Certainly. It was a source of wonderment that, in spite of the staff's anxiety about the future—which of course continues—they never took their eye off the ball. They had a clear understanding of why they were there and why they were doing what they were doing. There was strong victim orientation. Consequently, when people suggested to me that morale at Peterhead must be low, I had to say that I did not find that to be the case. There are certain indicators of low morale, not the least of which is that people no longer commit themselves to the organisational objective. In fact, that was far from the case. The Peterhead staff retained a clear focus on their work. As a result, I do not think that low morale is the right term to use; instead, I say that there is intense anxiety about the future, which might come over to some people as low morale. In using a more objective indicator of morale, I am not so sure that that was the case.
What was your perception of the prospects of the Peterhead team moving to A N Other new prison or reorganised prison for sex offenders in central Scotland?
I am sorry. I missed the first part of your question.
From your knowledge of the people involved, what are the prospects that all or most of the team at Peterhead will move to a putative new or reused prison in central Scotland that will be purely for sex offenders?
I cannot answer that question. I have no idea what the staff's intentions are.
Mr Rattray is perhaps aware that the review states that maintenance of family links is a major problem for the offender group that is housed at Peterhead, with 24 per cent citing distance as the principal reason for the problem. However, the staff and inmates who spoke to the committee during its recent visit stated that many prisoners believe that the problem of distance is minor compared to other factors. How important is it to resolve that situation? Am I correct in thinking that visiting times at Peterhead are longer than visiting times at prisons in the central belt?
I cannot comment on visiting times in other prisons, because I do not have such information at my fingertips. However, when I was governor at Peterhead, I found that a number of prisoners certainly had significant difficulties in receiving visits. Indeed, some prisoners did not receive any visits at all because of the nature of their offences, because they had no relatives or whatever. As a result, the issue was very mixed.
You mentioned that in some cases prisoners received no visits. Could those have been cases in which incest had been committed and in which the families did not want close communication with the prisoner?
I cannot comment on the specifics of that question, nor can I say that that situation is a fact. However, I can say that a number of prisoners did not get visits for a variety of reasons. I should balance that comment by pointing out that a number of prisoners were also very vocal about difficulties in receiving visits.
Did they complain to you about that?
Yes, frequently. The prison complaints commissioner was also involved.
Did a small minority of prisoners make those complaints?
I cannot remember the figure. Do you mean in terms of the ratio of such complaints to other grievances?
No, I mean in absolute terms. Was that group a very small percentage of the prisoners who were in Peterhead prison?
I am afraid that I really cannot remember.
Is there an arrangement by which prisoners can be moved to another prison in their locality? I think that we were told that there was such a solution.
Does that opportunity exist?
The opportunity exists for what is known as accumulating visits.
In the event of a family's being unable to come to the prison in Peterhead, are prisoners entitled to move to other prisons so that prison visits can be facilitated?
A prisoner would have to accumulate visits over a period of time. That would mean that the prisoner would have to forgo any visits at Peterhead, save those visits up and then transfer to another establishment to receive those visits, usually over a fortnight.
Has that system always been in place for every prison?
That system has existed for years.
During the committee's visit to Peterhead, prisoners emphasised the fact that the prison provided a safe location where they could address their offending behaviour while enabling their families to visit without fear for their safety. If sex offenders were in mainstream prisons, would not they be at risk from other prisoners?
That has traditionally been the case. However, as Mr Houchin said, the Scottish Prison Service has been learning how to manage sex offenders only since the early 1990s. Prior to that, they were kept locked up for their own safety. Over the past 10 years, we have been learning how to manage sex offenders in an entirely different way. It is very clear that, whatever happens, we would never go back to managing sex offenders as we did before 1990.
Have the positive factors that relate to the excellent sex offenders programme in Peterhead been taken sufficient account of in the estates review?
I think that they have. I do not want to get involved in speculation as to whether Peterhead should or should not close. The issue that should be addressed is how, if the prison does close, the period of transition should be managed. The Scottish Prison Service has said in the estates review that it would take a minimum of three years to plan any transition, if that is what it comes to.
Stuart Campbell, the programme's manager at Peterhead, stated that
I know Mr Campbell very well and if he said that, I have absolutely no reason to disagree with him. I have a very high regard for him.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton put another question to you that related to Stuart Campbell's comments, on the question of whether the sex offenders rehabilitation programme that is currently based at Peterhead could be transferred easily to somewhere else if Peterhead prison was closed. Last November, Ian Gunn told the committee in evidence that certain prisoners, such as sex offenders at Peterhead, must be segregated. Could you deliver the programme that is delivered at Peterhead as effectively in a segregated unit in another prison?
If that is the decision that the minister makes and that is what happens, it does not become a question of whether I think the programme could be delivered elsewhere; it becomes an issue of how we ensure that that happens. It would have to happen. We have gone far too far down the road of working with sex offenders and we have developed too much expertise in dealing with them to stop now. Whatever happens in relation to Peterhead, that programme cannot be allowed to be damaged in any way. If there is to be a transition, that transition would have to be very carefully managed to ensure that what you suggest does not happen.
Stuart Campbell said:
Sorry—I must stop you there, Michael. I had hoped to deal with all the stuff about the STOP programme and sex offenders later. We have drifted on to that topic, but we will come later to a section in which we can ask about concerns that the programme cannot be transplanted. I understand that Bill Rattray himself is developing concerns about the dismantling of that programme.
When we visited Peterhead, we were told about a proposal to achieve sanitation in a different way by having electronic doors and that sort of thing. Obviously, overcrowding is not an issue if there is single-room accommodation. What did you feel about that method of achieving night sanitation, which would mean that a lavatory would not need to be installed in every room?
My position on that has always been clear. When I went back to Peterhead as governor in 1996, long-term prisoners were living in accommodation in which water was seeping through the walls. During my time as governor, I was absolutely consistent in holding to the view that the buildings were well past their sell-by date, were not fit for purpose and would be far too expensive to refurbish. Consequently, any tinkering to upgrade the existing buildings would be expenditure that would not be repaid because it would not increase the longevity of the buildings. That has been my consistent position.
We might come back to that. The structure of the buildings is important. The committee ought to try to get information on how structurally sound the existing buildings are. I do not dispute what Donald Gorrie said, but we might examine that and take up the issue at another point.
If I may backtrack slightly, I want to ask about the staff who deal with the STOP programme. It must sometimes be distressing to the staff to take part in the programme. What counselling do they receive? What is staff turnover like? Did you find that staff could cope with delivering the programme only for a certain length of time before wanting to be transferred to something else?
That is exactly what happened. Some staff worked on the programme for several years and remained comfortable working on it if they had appropriate support. Other staff who worked on the programme would say that they wanted to take a break from the programme but might go back to it later.
We obviously do not need to tell you that Peterhead has been recognised as a centre of excellence. You indicated that the uncertainty of the estates review has had the effect on staff of making them anxious. Will there be a significant effect on delivery of the programme if the recommendations of the estates review are implemented?
Do you mean if Peterhead closes?
Yes.
The simple answer is that I do not know. I do not know because the Prison Service has never had to do that. We have closed prisons over the last couple of years, but we have never tried to do anything on the scale of closing Peterhead and shifting a programme as part of a closure.
So, the key is the management of the transition.
If the minister's view is that Peterhead should close, that will be his view. As a governor working within the Scottish Prison Service, my view would, in that case, be that we would have to ensure that the transition happens as effectively as possible to ensure continuity of the programme. I would ask what skills we could throw at that to ensure that continuity.
What effect would the fact that people do not want to leave Peterhead have on the transition? What would be the effect of the loss of valuable members of staff who say, "I'm sorry. I do not want to go and live in Glasgow. I want to stay."
That is a very difficult question. At one stage when I was the governor and there was much anxiety, I thought about surveying the staff to find out how many would be okay about moving to the central belt. However, I decided that that would have been viewed negatively and would merely have added to the anxiety. Consequently, I opted not to survey the staff. The outcome of that is that I am not in a position to answer that question, because I do not know how many staff would move happily and how many would not.
We will ask the staff that question. You were sufficiently concerned to think about having a survey.
It is clear that the staff should be asked that question. Indeed, if the decision is made to close Peterhead, the SPS will ask them that question.
You stated that you do not know what the implications of transferring the programme would be if Peterhead were to be closed. You were governor there for six years. I am concerned that you, with your expertise and experience, say that you do not know what the implications will be, given the prisoner group with which we are dealing. That suggests to me that there is an element of risk. The question is whether that risk was evaluated properly before we ever considered closing Peterhead, never mind before we began the consultation period.
I appear before the committee to give evidence. Giving evidence, as I understand it, is about providing factual information. I cannot speculate and try to pass off such a suggestion as factual information. I cannot sit here and tell you the facts of what will happen, because I do not know the answer. It would therefore be wrong of me to pass off my opinion as evidence or fact when it is mere speculation.
We are interested in your opinion because it is experienced opinion, so please give it to us.
My opinion is that I do not know the answer. I hope that that does not sound as if I am trying to avoid answering the question, because I am not. I am deliberately trying to be as objective as I can. That has to do with the fact that we have never before had to undertake such a closure and programme transfer in the SPS. We therefore do not know how that process will be managed or what the outcome will be if Peterhead closes. We just do not know.
That is fair enough. You say that the decision to close Peterhead should not be allowed to happen because of the loss—
Because of the contribution that its programme makes to safety in Scotland.
The closure should not be allowed to happen. What, in your professional view and from your experience, would have to happen to ensure that that contribution was not lost?
First, we would have to find out how many of the existing Peterhead staff would want to move with the prisoners to whatever would be the new location. The reply to that question would determine the skills shortfall and would inform what we would do to ensure that the new location was ready in time. A complex set of issues is involved, but my starting point would be the staff, because without them there is no programme.
Two things arise from that reply. How many staff are prepared to go and who would indicate to the staff where they would be likely to go?
I should qualify what I mean by staff. I refer to a skills transfer from Peterhead.
I will return to the point that I made earlier. You stated that you have to find out which staff at Peterhead are prepared to move elsewhere. You also said that staff should be advised about where they are likely to be moved. Should such information be available before a decision is made on the closure of Peterhead?
It is not my job or my role to speculate on that.
That is correct. In setting out the premise, Mr Rattray answered the question. He said that that is the very least that should be done.
Given that the time scale for the estates review is three years, if the decision is taken to close Peterhead and to transfer or to uprate staff, does that give enough time—
I am sorry to interrupt, but, having read the document, I understand that we are not talking about a time scale of three years, but of a minimum of three years. In reality, the time scale will be substantially longer. If that is the case, we have a sufficient planning window. We have to bear it in mind that the original STOP programme at Peterhead was developed and the staff to run the programme were trained within three years.
I have a follow-up question about staffing. Even if we were to say that something close to a large minority of staff were prepared to move elsewhere with the programme, would not that damage the programme significantly, given what you said about the extraordinary staff at Peterhead?
I am again reluctant to be drawn into that particular conversation—
But that is why you are—
The question is speculative. The staff at Peterhead who are the most committed to the programme and who are the most effective in the programme—I am talking not only of the group delivery staff—
I know that you are not, you are also talking about the others.
I am talking about the operations staff—the whole staff group. Those staff are sufficiently committed to what they do. The staff, to echo something that was said earlier, are very proud of their task.
They are.
They are proud of what they do. To use a horrible buzz term, they make powerful culture carriers. They infect people—including me—with their enthusiasm for what they do. Whenever they meet prison officers from other environments, who might not necessarily have that same level of enthusiasm for the work that is being done at Peterhead, they are pretty persuasive. The short answer to the question, therefore, is that I expect that there would be sufficient numbers who could carry that culture with them.
What do you think of Professor Marshall's view that the Peterhead programme would be extremely difficult to transport elsewhere?
I have the highest regard for Professor Marshall, whom I have met on several occasions, and his expertise. I would not want to dispute what he says. However, transporting the programme is a separate issue from whether Peterhead closes. If the decision is to close Peterhead, the question then is how we manage the transition. The factors in the decision on whether Peterhead should close—
Yes, but the closure decision is not de facto; that is what we are talking about. It is a question of balancing bricks and mortar against a culture and programme that work. Perhaps the issue—which I might ask others to consider—is whether we should develop the Peterhead programme. What is your view of continuing Peterhead as a centre of excellence for dealing with sex offenders by building a facility in Peterhead and getting on with it?
I do not think that it is my role to comment on that.
You can just give your opinion.
I said that because I, like any civil servant, take seriously my constitutional position. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to sit in a public forum and speculate on a decision that my minister has yet to make. I do not think that that would be right.
I am just asking you whether a good or reasonable alternative would be to keep the sex offenders programme in Peterhead, develop the adjacent premises—there is plenty of land there—and have all the sex offenders in one unit, so that the programme can be developed there and can lead the way. We should not start from the premise that Peterhead will close, but from the premise that we will develop Peterhead. That is an alternative position to take.
That is a decision for the minister.
It may be he his decision, but what is your view?
I think that it would be inappropriate for me to comment in advance of the minister making a decision.
Are you aware that, although the minister has expressed an intention, no decision has been made on Peterhead? Do you accept that there is room to build another prison on publicly owned land that is adjacent to Peterhead prison?
That is factual. There is any amount of land at Peterhead.
If a decision was eventually made, and was reinforced by Parliament, to transfer the Peterhead expertise elsewhere, for example to Glenochil, what would be the effectiveness of the sex offenders programme in a mainstream prison of that nature?
What would the nature of the programme be in—I beg your pardon?
In Glenochil.
What would the nature of the programme be?
Yes.
If that happens—
I am asking whether the programme would be as effective in that kind of prison. I understand that in Peterhead you have been operating the programme effectively with considerable expertise, but operating it on its own.
No, the programme does not run on its own; other programmes surround it.
Yes, but my point is that those who are present in Peterhead prison are sex offenders.
Right.
There are no other prisoners. If the programme were transferred to Glenochil, would not there be other prisoners, as well as sex offenders, in the prison?
I would probably have to consult the estates review document.
You cannot give expert evidence on that point.
My understanding is that the estates review document does not specify that Glenochil would be the alternative location, but that it could be. I would have to consult the document.
The convener asked you about this matter. Professor Marshall suggested that, if an alternative to Peterhead had to be built, there should be two smaller, sex-offender-only prisons, one of which should be in Peterhead and the other in the central belt. As an experienced governor, what is your view of that proposal?
I am sorry—I am not aware of that. When did Professor Marshall state that? I am not aware of having read that.
Will you specify the date, Michael? My document does not have the date on it.
To avoid getting into a free-for-all, will members please speak through the chair. Has somebody located the reference?
The reference occurs on page 2 of the report on Peterhead prison's sexual offender programme, which is dated 20 July 2000.
I have two other questions, which relate to the condition of Peterhead, but perhaps the convener would like to take other questions first.
Stewart Stevenson has been very patient. As the constituency MSP, he has become something of an expert on Peterhead.
Thank you. No one has accused me of being a patient man until now. I will see what I can do.
When I heard that on the news last night, it came as no surprise to me. There is no doubt that the prisoners feel safe at Peterhead and feel that they can work on their offending behaviour in a supportive environment. Like any other group, prisoners do not particularly want their established pattern to change. The petition came as no surprise—that is the extent to which I am able to comment on it.
That is fine. Yesterday I met the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, to discuss the estates review in relation to Peterhead. He put another point to me. He indicated that, because of the location of the prison in relation to other prisons, there are difficulties to do with rotating staff from the programmes that are administered at Peterhead, to give them relief from that stressful work.
I am very comfortable commenting on your first question. However, I am not sure that I am qualified to make the comparison, although I can see the comparison clearly in so far as prisons and psychiatric hospitals are both total institutions and involve the cultural issues and everything that goes with that. I also recognise the importance of the quality of interpersonal relations. It may well be that there are parallels.
So, in your time as governor, you received no feedback from staff to suggest that they had an issue with the geographical location of Peterhead prison.
That the staff had an issue with it?
Yes.
From time to time, I received requests from officers who wanted to transfer from Peterhead for a variety of reasons—domestic reasons, and so on—but I would not describe the location as an issue.
The requests were no more than would be expected in a run-of-the-mill prison?
Yes. Absolutely.
Thank you very much for that.
Oh, gosh.
Tell us in round numbers—you will not be held to the last one.
The answer to that question depends on what you mean by the estates review team. For example, the operations director for the north and east was not a permanent member of that team but he was, nonetheless, an adviser to the team and was a frequent visitor to the prison.
He is the line manager for the prison governor.
That is correct.
Are you saying that no specific visits were made to the prison by people independent of the line management?
No, that is not what I am saying. That would not be accurate. I am slightly hesitant because the personnel of the estates review team changed and different governors worked on the team at different times. I am struggling to remember, but I think that there was a constant backbone, with other people coming in and out of the team. Undoubtedly, other members of the team visited Peterhead at different times but subsequently left the estates review team.
I asked the question simply to help the committee and me to assess the extent to which those who wrote the report and drew up the conclusions had the opportunity to be exposed to and recognise the special character of the people who work at Peterhead.
That goes without saying. The work of the staff is reflected in two places. First, it is reflected in the estates review document, which says that any comment about Peterhead is not a comment about the staff and acknowledges that they are highly skilled people. Secondly, when the Minister for Justice introduced the estates review, he paid tribute to the staff at Peterhead. There was never any doubt that we should consider the staff at Peterhead or any suggestion that nobody cared about them.
You have made it clear that you are now involved in operational risk assessment. You cannot talk specifically about the projects that you are involved in, but it would be useful to the committee and to me if you could identify some of the key operational risk headings that would be created in transferring the services that are currently provided at Peterhead to a location in the central belt. Perhaps then, when the committee meets other witnesses, it could focus on those areas, to identify witnesses' understanding of the operational risks. You have identified this as the biggest and riskiest move—I am putting words into your mouth slightly—that the SPS has undertaken. Given your particular expertise, it would be useful to know the key headings that you think we should consider.
If the minister makes the decision to close Peterhead, it will almost inevitably fall to me in my current role to articulate those risks. As yet, that is not the case, and I do not know of anyone who is examining such issues at the moment. One of the reasons for that—it is one of the difficulties—is that no decision has been made about Peterhead. No planning can take place for what will happen until after the decision is made, otherwise you know as well as I do that it would look as if the plans were happening in the background during the consultation phase. I can give the committee a categorical assurance that that is not the case.
But that creates a severe paradox. We appear to be moving to a position where we may make a decision to close Peterhead without any understanding of the operational risks that that would create. In my opinion, you have made it clear that there is substantial operational risk. I put it to you, for example, that based on the normal transfer costs for staff, the mobile staff at Peterhead would cost between £5 million and £8 million to relocate. It is beginning to sound like the operational risks will mean that we may have to have a fully functioning prison in the central belt before we even start to run down Peterhead, and that the prisons may overlap for a number of years. The current budget at Peterhead is £8 million, so for two years it would be £16 million. Add those things together and it can be seen that we could rebuild at Peterhead. Is not it cheaper to build at Peterhead, rather than move?
I think you know what my answer will be: that is a matter for the minister.
Lord James, you did not get an answer to your question to the governor on the Marshall report and the alternatives to Peterhead. I would like that question to be answered.
I have been informed by the clerks that Bill Marshall's visit was in 1996, although in the papers another date is given. The clerks can clarify that later. I hope that you will be sent a copy of the report. It was clear in that report that the assertion—
1996? I am sorry, I am just not familiar with that report.
If I may, I will read it out. We are talking about the proposal submitted at the request of Alec Spencer as director of rehabilitation and care at the SPS. I am sure that you have seen the document, which is Professor Marshall's report into—
When was that, convener? I know of a report that Bill Marshall wrote on a visit to Peterhead prison, but it does not sound to me as if that is what you are referring to.
There are two reports. This is what we quote as the official one. We have seen the unofficial one. We will send it to you. It would be useful to let you see it, but the question has not been answered—
Excuse me, may I consult Mr Houchin for a moment?
Yes.
I was at headquarters this morning and a document was passed to me, but I have not had time to read it. That might be the document that you are referring to.
I want to pick up on the point that Lord James raised, which has not been answered. It is about the treatment of long-termers, and is referred to on page 2 of the report "Proposal for the Provision of Treatment Services to Sexual Offenders In the Scottish Prison Service".
It is the end of the second paragraph. It states:
James asked you to give your professional view on that from your experience as governor.
You are asking me to comment on something that I have not had the opportunity to think through. I am reluctant to comment on that cold.
Perhaps you could write to us with your views. We would be interested to get your views, once you have had a chance to consider the matter. We know how committed you and your former staff were and are to the sex offender programme. It is important that we defer to your experience on the matter. We would value your views on an alternative, if one has to be found. If we may, we will write to you and clarify your view.
Yes.
Convener, can I ask two quick questions?
A very tolerant Maureen Macmillan was desperate to get in before I intervened because your point had not been picked up. I would like to finish this part of the meeting shortly.
I have a supplementary question about the impact of location. You dealt with the impact that location has on the prison staff and the prisoners themselves in regard to visits. Does the location have any impact on the programme? I am thinking of what the governor of Barlinnie said about how towards the end of a prisoner's stay in Barlinnie they were able to access social work, housing and so on. That would not be possible in Peterhead. Is that an important omission in the way in which sex offenders are dealt with? What happens now?
Have you read the Cosgrove panel report?
I have seen a summary of it.
That report highlights a number of throughcare issues. There is no doubt that there are such issues throughout Scotland and that a substantial amount of work is still required on the matter. As someone who was on the Cosgrove panel, I can say that it was clear that provision for released sex offenders was sketchy and that there was no consistent approach throughout Scotland. Consequently, a lot of work is required to achieve that consistency throughout Scotland and to establish how that will happen. From the work that has been done in Glasgow to try to establish throughcare, for example, I know how important we view it as being in the transition from prison back into the community. It is a fundamental part of the work in relation to sex offenders specifically, because of the amount of support that they require for relapse prevention on liberation.
If the programme were to stay at Peterhead, how would you see the throughcare being delivered?
If the programme stays in Peterhead, we have to find a way of delivering throughcare and getting better at it.
But the prisoners will not be in their home environment.
What happened at Peterhead—and I am sure that it must still be the same—is that six weeks to two months prior to the end of their sentence we would transfer prisoners back to their home establishment, with a view to establishing social work contact prior to liberation. The point that Maureen Macmillan raises was one of the reasons for that being done. Another reason was to give the local community an assurance that sex offenders would not be released from the prison gates into the community at Peterhead.
I am prepared to extend the evidence-taking session for another 10 minutes, as I know that members want to ask other questions. The quid pro quo is that we will have to continue until later to consider the regulation of the legal profession inquiry. I am content to extend the evidence-taking session, but it means that we will go on past 5 o'clock. Are we agreed?
We will proceed, as this is very interesting. I have forewarned members that we have a longer evening ahead of us.
I want to ask about the progression of prisoners at Peterhead. During our visit to the prison, progression was presented as a problem for prisoners in the top end who move to other prisons. When such prisoners go to other prisons, they often have to be put in protective custody because they are from Peterhead. There are problems with that.
Various factors are involved. I must say that I have no knowledge of Professor Marshall conducting research in the community in Peterhead. Research was done in relation to a community project, but it was driven by a manager from the prison. We might be talking about two entirely different things.
My understanding is that a questionnaire was sent to local residents to ask for their opinion.
I can talk about the questionnaire that was sent out from the prison. At that time, we were trying to establish what was referred to as an enhanced regime. We did not intend to call it a top-end scheme because that term has a specific legal definition. As part of that enhanced regime, prisoners would have had the opportunity to work under supervision outside the prison, which was different from other community-based projects. We asked the community about the project because we were trying to take a bold and different step and we needed to know that the community would support that step. There would have been no question of going ahead with the project without that support.
The decision was political.
No, it was a decision about operational risk and was based on the sensitivity that surrounded the project. The progress of sex offender programmes and our relationship with the community could have been knocked back severely if something had gone wrong. The project was considered to be a risk too far and too soon.
At that political time.
Do you mind if I follow up on my question?
No. I was agreeing with your point.
Is Bill Rattray saying that, had the prison waited until after the elections, the decision might have been different?
I do not think that that is correct. If something had gone wrong with such a project during the early stages of the new Parliament, the issue would have become very high profile. That risk was not worth taking.
Why did the prison not wait until after the elections or until the Scottish Parliament was up and running—which was three years ago—to revisit the project?
I must take responsibility for that. The project was never revisited because, shortly thereafter, we moved into the estates review and started to ask whether there would be a Peterhead prison. It became inappropriate to start the project when so many other things were on our agenda. The reason was quite straightforward.
That was surely acting on speculation.
I beg your pardon.
It is pure speculation whether there will be a Peterhead prison.
Touché.
If a decision is made to have a new prison on the Peterhead site, would it not be perfectly feasible to build night sanitation facilities and a new house block or to replace the whole prison on the land that is available with appropriate phasing in over a period of years?
The estates review points out that sufficient land is available to do so.
So those options would be feasible.
The estates review points out that such options would not be economically feasible.
I think that the estates review mentions 350 prisoners. If the prison were larger, would those options be feasible?
When the estates review started, we were asked to submit costings based on a 350-place house block. If the development went ahead, that block would have reduced the overall cost per prisoner place at Peterhead to £19,500, I think. I still have difficulty working out net present values, for example—I am not sure if I fully grasp such things. Nonetheless, the figures are available in the estates review document. To build the house block at Peterhead would have reduced the cost per prisoner place to £19,500.
That is if there were 350 places. The costings for a 500-place prison were not done.
I did not do them.
Nor did the review.
I cannot comment on that.
I want to conclude with the other Bill Marshall report of 20 July 2000, which you commissioned and may be familiar with. I want to ask for your professional views on it. It says:
That might have been Professor Marshall's view at the time, based almost on a notion of Peterhead prison closing one day and the prisoners being bused down to a new prison the following week. If that were the case, I would absolutely agree with him—that would take years to repair. However, I understand that if the prison closes, that would not happen. There would be a substantial time frame to manage the transition. I reiterate what I said: it is not a question of whether we can make things work; it is a managerial imperative that we make things work.
You are talking as if the prison will close.
If I am, I apologise.
You must know something that we do not know.
I do not wish to speculate.
I want to press you on that because—
I do not know something that you do not know.
I want to press you on the comments in the report that you, with all your experience, commissioned. The report says:
In relation to what?
In relation to the prospective closure of Peterhead prison.
The decision to close Peterhead prison has not been made so I cannot comment. I do not know what the decision will be.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Meeting suspended until 16:53 and thereafter continued in private until 17:18.
Previous
Petitions