Justice 1 Committee, 19 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

Cornton Vale Prison (Visit)

Item 8 concerns the visit to Cornton Vale prison by members of our committee, along with members of the Justice 2 Committee.

I presume that all members have received a copy of the report on the visit that the Justice 2 Committee produced.

I do not think so.

The clerks to the Justice 2 Committee have written a full report on our visit, which should be circulated to all members, as it will provide them with more detailed information.

It is intended that the report will be circulated. It is awaiting circulation as we speak.

I would like to highlight a couple of issues that struck me most. Over the years, many of the problems in Cornton Vale have related to the remand provisions there. This was my second visit to Cornton Vale and I noticed that there has been a marked improvement in the remand unit. That impression was supported by prisoners and by the staff who work in the remand unit. The improvement is the result of investment in the building and of training for staff.

Since I was last at Cornton Vale, there has also been a significant improvement in medical care services. There is a greater number of staff and a higher standard of facilities for them to operate in. However, there is concern that the Scottish Prison Service may have plans to put the medical care services out to tender, so that they are no longer provided in-house. If that is the course of action that the SPS is considering, it could have considerable implications for the quality of service that is available, given the experience of the staff. It also appears that links between medical staff in the prison and medical staff in the community have improved considerably. However, the range of agencies involved continues to cause problems.

On a negative note, overcrowding, which is due to on-going work in Cornton Vale, is a continuing problem. The cells are fairly small and in some parts of the remand unit, which is in the old building, and some other areas, prisoners are doubling up.

Another problem is the fact that we continue to lock up people who should not be in prison. The vast majority of the prisoners in Cornton Vale are in for only three months, which makes it difficult for the staff who provide services in the prison to do anything constructive with them. That is not an argument for keeping prisoners in prison for longer, but there is a serious need to examine how female offenders are dealt with and alternatives to custody. It remains the case that a considerable number of people are locked up for fine defaulting or failing to have a television licence.

I detected that the staff at Cornton Vale feel that they are doing everything they can—they are keeping their side of the bargain by improving the situation in the prison—but the situation outwith the prison is not improving. The prison continues to receive prisoners who should not be in prison. That must be addressed, as staff at Cornton Vale are under continuous pressure and, as ever, it is inevitable that even greater difficulties will arise at some point.

I was extremely impressed with the staff whom I met. Kate Donegan, the governor, has made tremendous changes and has improved the quality of the services that are provided at the prison. Those improvements are, primarily, a result of the dedication of the staff—they made sure that things improved for the prisoners.

I ask Michael Matheson to expand on his suggestion that the courts do not deal fairly with people. I recognise that the sentences imposed by the courts are outwith the remit of the Justice 1 Committee, unless we are talking about mandatory sentences and the limits that can be imposed on sentences. A prisoner who is released after three months will have received a six-month sentence. I would hate to think that a first-time offender who had not paid their television licence would get six months in prison.

There is a lot of emotion about this issue. I would like Michael to expand on the unfair imprisonment that he mentioned.

I do not think that remission is available for short sentences. Is that correct?

No. Remission is available—

May I—

Let me try to respond to Phil Gallie's question first.

I was just going to give my view on Phil's comments. Carry on, by all means.

I used fine defaulters or people who had not bought a television licence as examples. I am not sure what information the court considers when it imprisons first-time offenders, but the examples show that people are still sent to prison for such offences. We have also been told of prisoners with obvious mental health problems who should have been sent to hospital but who were sent to Cornton Vale because there was nowhere in the NHS for them to go.

It is questionable whether some offenders should be in custody in the first place, including those women who should be in hospital rather than in prison. As I said, there is a question about how female offenders are dealt with, which is something that—

The Justice 2 Committee is covering the issue of female offenders in its work programme. We are carrying out on-going research into sentencing and public attitudes to sentencing. We have agreed to take oral evidence from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service as soon as the long awaited estates review is published—if that ever happens. Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons' annual report is due out towards the end of August, so we might want to hear from him as soon as possible after the recess.

Did the visit cover the support services that are available to women when they are released from prison? Was there any indication of the rates of reoffending and readmission?

As I went round the prison with the inspectors and the governor, I was struck by the fact that the governor seemed to have seen most of the prisoners that we came across in the establishment before. We were given the impression that there is a revolving door problem—the same people come back time and again.

We discussed support services outwith the prison. There have been some developments in improving links between health agencies and social work bodies. The problem is that Cornton Vale takes female prisoners from all over Scotland. It is not as though it serves a local area. Naturally, that presents some considerable difficulties. The discussions that we had with the staff and the inspectors revealed that there is a need to improve community-based and support services for prisoners.

The Justice 2 Committee is inquiring into female offenders and it will have to consider alternatives to custody and support services for people coming out of prison. Many women in the prison—nearly 80 per cent—have had some type of drug problem. Often, they are in prison for a short time, they return to the same chaotic environment that they came from and they end up committing more crimes to feed their habit. If we are to break that link there must be proper community support services. I had the impression that the good links that have been developed were mainly in the large urban areas and not necessarily in the smaller locales.

Female prisoners in Inverness have the option of going to Cornton Vale if they are going to serve a longer sentence, but many opt to stay in Inverness prison, because it is closer to the local community. I take the point that those who go down to Cornton Vale need support when they return to their community.

I hate to be controversial, but we must also be practical. Michael Matheson's comment about female prisoners having drug-related problems extends equally to male prisoners. Most short-term offenders are involved in drugs and there has been an effort to address the problem of the prison population being recycled in that context. I wonder whether, now that we are subject to the European convention on human rights and equality legislation, it is right that any of our committees considers women offenders specifically or whether we should simply consider offenders.

I do not really want to open up that discussion. In any event, it is not for us to discuss what other committees should or should not decide to investigate.

I seek a ruling on the matter, either from the clerks or from you, convener, to guide the committee in the future. It is an important point. We cannot talk about equality and then go off along different lines. I accept that there are differences—that is a position that I have long held—but at the same time I recognise that there have been changes to the rulebook.

If I were tempted to comment off the cuff—I am not necessarily being forced to do so—I would say that the fact that we have equality legislation does not preclude us from deciding that, in certain cases, there are differences between men and women, which require different approaches and treatment.

I welcome that.

We also said that we would consider young offenders and no one raised the objection that we should consider old offenders as well.

In my defence, allow me to say that my comments were predicated on the fact that I visited Cornton Vale, which is a women's prison.

We must deal with the reality of the situation.