Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 20 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Monday, November 20, 2000

Official Report 217KB pdf

---

Barlinnie Prison (Visit)

Item 5 is on the visit to Her Majesty's prison at Barlinnie. Members will recall that at our previous meeting we were awaiting a draft letter to the minister. Christine Grahame submitted a draft to us, to which the clerk and I made some changes, but it is substantially as Christine wrote it. I have a couple of changes to suggest as a result of something else that has happened.

Are there any comments on the current draft? As there are none, I will suggest a couple of changes.

At a previous meeting, the committee asked whether prisons are covered by health and safety legislation. The clerks spoke to Clive Fairweather about that. Apparently the situation is a bit like a catch-22. Prisons are covered by relevant statutory requirements, but the Scottish Prison Service has Crown immunity, so it cannot be prosecuted if it breaches the requirements to which it is subject, which is nice. As a result, I have two suggestions to make. B hall at Barlinnie has been out of action for about 18 months, awaiting refurbishment, and no decision will be taken on that until the outcome of the estates review is known.

I suggest that we insert another paragraph between paragraphs 3 and 4, to read, "Other expenditure which appears to have been stalled by the lateness of the estates review is the refurbishment of B hall at Barlinnie. As we understand it, the hall has been lying empty for more than 18 months, pending the outcome of the review. The committee does not consider it acceptable that some prisoners should be forced to live in cramped conditions while one hall has been out of use for such a long time."

Are we happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

It might be as well to include a reference to Clive Fairweather's report "Punishment First—Verdict Later?: A Review of Conditions for Remand Prisoners at the End of the 20th Century". In paragraph 4, where we say

"based on the report from the above three members"

we could add "and HM chief inspector of prisons' report "Punishment First – Verdict Later?" That would show that not only the committee, but the chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, has concerns.

Are we otherwise happy with the letter?

Also on slopping out, is

"Sanitation was clearly inadequate"

the right way to express it? It is obvious that sanitation is inadequate—it is non-existent.

I am not sure whether running water might be classed as sanitation. Do you suggest that we say something else or that we remove the sentence?

We do not need the sentence. The letter already makes the point that slopping out is unhealthy and breaches the European convention on human rights.

If there were any doubt that sanitation is inadequate, I would be concerned.

The sentence is not strong. Are we happy to delete it?

Members indicated agreement.

I would like some scope for mentioning the effect of the estates review on the morale of prison officers, which has been mentioned to me.

I attended the meeting of prison officers, along with Clive Fairweather. I was alarmed by what I heard from young prison officers, who were committed when they joined the service. They were talk ing about a change of career because they feel that the future is so uncertain. The stability of the service is at stake.

I wonder whether we could add to paragraph 3, which talks about the estates review. After the sentence on priority expenditure, we could say that the committee is also concerned about the detrimental effects that the review process is having on prison officers' morale.

That will do for me. I will be happy as long as we get something in the letter.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Great stuff. That item is concluded.

In accordance with our previous decision, we will now move into private session to consider the report on the proposed bill on protection from abuse.

Meeting continued in private until 16:19.