Visit (HMP Kilmarnock)
I welcome Christine Grahame from the Justice 1 Committee, who has just joined us. She was a member of this committee when we decided to go to Kilmarnock prison and she joined us on the visit. In the early stages of discussions about our future work plan, we decided that we wanted to find out more about Kilmarnock prison.
Members have a note that outlines briefly the facts that we established during the visit to Kilmarnock prison.
It is already 12.30 and I am conscious of the time. I do not want to curtail discussion on the matter, but I think that after we have heard a brief report on the visit, we should return to the subject at another time. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Mary Mulligan, Bill Aitken, Christine Grahame and I went to the prison. Does anybody wish to give general impressions of the visit?
I was impressed and encouraged by what we saw. Clearly, the fact that Kilmarnock is a new building gives it an unfair advantage over other prisons and allows it to do things that would not be possible in some of the older institutions.
The accommodation was satisfactory and allowed prisoners to live their everyday lives with some dignity. The workshops were a positive move. They provide the opportunity for prisoners—some of whom have not worked a day in their lives—to receive some basic training. I hope that that training will help them to gain employment when they leave prison. It is appropriate that they should be able to earn more money than they could in other prisons. Their income allows them to buy things for personal consumption and makes it easier for them to maintain contact with their friends and family in the outside world.
The fact that the building was purpose-built was also useful in terms of security. The camera system is of great assistance in stopping drugs from getting in. The regime appeared to be fairly satisfactory.
I—and, I suspect, other members—were concerned by the fact that there were contradictions between what we saw and what was in the inspector's report. We might want to follow up that matter.
Given that being deprived of one's liberty is no one's idea of an ideal lifestyle, the prisoners seemed to respect the regime in the prison and felt that it was quite positive. Time will tell whether that has a positive influence when they are released, if they stop reoffending.
I will not repeat what Bill Aitken said. Kilmarnock prison starts with the advantage of being a new building and so being able to incorporate new technology, which provides a better atmosphere in the prison.
On all visits, we feel that we do not enough time and thoughts come to us after we have left. I want to pursue two matters. There have been reports of discontent among the staff, but the staff to whom I spoke seemed relatively happy in their jobs. The staff seemed to be young and new to prisons. I am concerned that there may still be a suggestion that there is a heavy turnover of staff. I do not know whether that is because staff are unhappy or because they are new and are seeking posts in the Scottish Prison Service. We need to pursue that matter.
The other matter that I want to pursue is the health centre. Although we went to the centre for a little while, I felt that we did not really get to speak to the prisoners who were using it. Obviously, the health centre is an important part of the prison set-up.
The visit to Kilmarnock prison was the most interesting visit that I have been on so far. The meetings that we had before and after the visit made it clear that there were many tensions, such as between our desire to know what was going on in the prison and the staff's desire to show us that what was going on was good. The Scottish Prison Service was well represented at the meetings. We had a chance to have real exchanges of concerns and information.
We were able to put to Premier Prison Services our concern about the self-harm rate, which Clive Fairweather's inspection team identified as being four times that of other prisons. It was explained to us that the way in which assaults are counted in Kilmarnock prison is different from how they are counted in the Scottish Prison Service—an assault involving two prisoners in Kilmarnock prison counts as two, but in the Scottish Prison Service, it counts as one. There is a bit of double counting, but that still does not explain the high levels of self-harm at Kilmarnock.
I do not feel that we got under the skin on issues such as rates of pay, sick-pay, and how schemes compared to those in the Scottish Prison Service. I thought that we would not gain access to that information, but the director said that we could have it. We need to pursue that information.
I also held the view that Kilmarnock was an impressive set-up in that it is a new prison, there are closed-circuit television cameras all over the place and the line of sight is clear—that was the explanation that was given for having fewer staff in the prison. Quite a few members of the management team have come from the Scottish Prison Service. The transfer of skills from the public sector into the private management of Kilmarnock prison is considerable.
It is becoming a bit clearer that the performance indicators for the contract are different from performance indicators that apply generally. We were given a brief summary of the issue and are beginning to get our heads round it. We were told that the contract did not give Premier Prison Services the kind of flexibility that it wanted. Premier Prison Services also pointed out that the contract was drawn up in 1997 and was not designed to be compared like with like.
There are still many unanswered questions, but the visit was good and useful. The decision that we have to take now is whether to take the matter any further.
I endorse much of what has been said about the building. However, I got the feeling that the visit was stage-managed. I am noting the paragraph on transition in the note. Perhaps I am wearing my cynical specs, but I note that it says:
"The introductory section of the programme had lasted longer than expected so members were unable to see inmates at work".
We never saw what it is like to have 22 men in a woodwork shed under the supervision of one officer and a camera. There was one time that I got close to an officer without an SPS guy at my shoulder—they were always there. I asked the officer whether he felt that that was sufficient supervision and he said no. Immediately, the SPS man started to write something down and I said jokingly, "I hope it's not his P45," but I meant it. I got the feeling that we were not getting under the skin of the prison. It was the same with the staff on that shift. The report says that 92 per cent of staff had not worked in a prison before and everybody I spoke to had worked in shops or in some other line of work. I got the feeling that if we had visited at a different time, perhaps different personnel would have been there. I do not know—that is just a hunch.
We did not see prisoners moving about. There are about 519 prisoners, but I must have seen only about 10 of them. A wee group walked past us. I saw two remand prisoners, but I saw nobody else to speak to throughout the visit. When we went to Barlinnie, we saw it warts and all and everybody was walking about. Cornton Vale was much the same, but at Kilmarnock I wondered where all the people were.
I plan to take up the prison's offer to call unannounced. I will write to the prison to make sure that there is no trouble at the security gate and I will say that I will turn up at some time, but it will not be in the near future because the staff will be waiting. On our visit, the prison was too neat and tidy and everything was too in place.
In fact, we did see quite a lot of the prisoners because as I was waiting for about seven or eight minutes I remember seeing about 150 guys walk past with their cards to check out to go for lunch—it was in the long hall.
I am obliged to you for saying that, but I must have been somewhere else at that point because I missed them. I am concerned that we did not see the workshops in full flow.
We certainly did not see the workshops in full flow.
I am also concerned about the level of experience of staff. I accept that the senior management had come from the SPS, as you said, convener, but nearly all the prison officers I spoke to had a lot of experience, apart from those in the visitors centre. That does not tally with the information that we have. As you have already mentioned, convener, we did not appear to get right under the skin. Our experience did not tally with what was in Clive Fairweather's report and that gives me concern.
Both accounts are true. Bill Aitken and I saw floods of prisoners coming out for lunch. There seemed to be respect for the prisoners in allowing them to have their lunch. However, on the couple of occasions when I tried to speak to the prisoners I wanted to speak to, I was told that I could not because they were having their lunch and I should not interfere. I accepted that because it was a fair point. The prison is not a zoo, but by the same token, I would have liked a bit more freedom to speak to the prisoners I chose and not those whom the staff chose.
In paragraph 15 of the report, Christine Grahame makes the point that it would be useful to invite people from the Premier Prison Services to give evidence to the committee. I concur with that strongly.
In answer to a parliamentary question to Jim Wallace, I was told that he intends to hold consultation after the prison estates review. As Peterhead prison is in my constituency, I have an interest in the review. I am not sure that I know yet—I will be asking the minister what he means by consultation—whether that matter will come to this committee or to the Justice 1 Committee. That might be an opportunity to take evidence.
In relation to paragraph 13, I would like to know the original breakdown of staff by background and where those who left went and why. I would also like to know about the current mix of staff.
I note in paragraph 12 that the clerks are uncertain as to whether the staff receive PRP—perhaps it was RRP, but I suspect that profit-related pay is what is referred to. I am interested in knowing about that and having a better understanding of the structure and merit awards that are open to staff so that we can understand and compare what is happening in the PPS and in the SPS.
Although I did not take part in the visit and I was not a member of the Justice 1 Committee at the time, I have two close friends who work in HMP Kilmarnock. One of them happened to be staying with us this weekend, so I took the opportunity to ask her some of the questions that the report raises.
There is no doubt that starting levels of pay at Kilmarnock are lower than those in the SPS, although there is more scope to rise up through the system. However, I am not sure how the remuneration package allows people to progress. It is probably linked to experience and the amount of training that people have done. The working week is 37 hours in the SPS, as against 45 hours at Kilmarnock.
Because most of the staff who were recruited at the beginning had no previous involvement in prisons—my friends came from a completely different background—many of them failed to adapt to a prison regime, which can be tough. Many of them also moved on to the SPS, because of the slightly different pay scales in the service. That is just anecdotal evidence, which the committee should treat as such. However, I would like at some stage to look round Kilmarnock prison.
That is the crux of the matter. We are not at all clear about the situation. As Christine Grahame said, during the visit to Kilmarnock a general invitation was issued to the committee. There is no reason why members should not visit the prison—the more the merrier.
The report is complete to the extent that it contains all the information that we received when we were at Kilmarnock, but other information is required. It would be above board for us to ask Premier Prison Services for information about pay, performance indicators and conditions of employment, as well as for any other information that members would like to have.
Could you ask about the staffing level in the woodshed? It was put to me that the man in charge thought that there should be at least one more member of staff there. At the moment, one man and a central camera are responsible for supervising 22 inmates in a place where there are piles of wood, hammers and saws. Even a secondary school technical department would not put one teacher in charge of 22 pupils working in such circumstances. I do not have any other information, but I would like to know whether additional staff are being taken on for the woodshed. We have information on self-harm, bullying and all the other matters to which Clive Fairweather alluded. I am concerned that workshops give prisoners the tools to get on with that.
We will seek the information that Christine Grahame has requested, as well as information on staffing levels generally. Stewart Stevenson also asked for information on staff turnover and on the previous experience of staff. Once we have received that information, we can produce a further report. At that point, we can decide whether we want to invite in representatives of the prison for members to question further. If any other questions occur to members, they should inform the clerk.
Representatives of Premier Prison Services are due to give evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on the report by the chief inspector of prisons. Perhaps we can discuss at that meeting the issues that have been raised here. There is no point in inviting the same witnesses to two separate meetings. It would make sense for the Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees to take evidence from Premier Prison Services together.
We can discuss how that could be done. We will complete the report that we have started and discuss how it might be appropriate to take any additional evidence that is needed.
Christine Grahame has suggested that the Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees meet jointly, but I am not sure what we are trying to achieve. The Justice 2 Committee has been on a visit, whereas the Justice 1 Committee is considering the report by the chief inspector of prisons. I am happy to hear evidence from representatives of Premier Prison Services if they have already been invited to appear before the Justice 1 Committee, but I would like to have some guidance on the structure of our inquiries.
We have not formally invited representatives of Premier Prison Services to appear before the Justice 1 Committee, but we intend to do that. We have received evidence from Clive Fairweather about Kilmarnock prison, and we are bound to invite representatives of Premier Prison Services, along with representatives of trade unions and so on, to speak to his report. Pauline McNeill and I plan to have a meeting later today, at which we can discuss this matter. I am suggesting only that we need not invite Premier Prison Services to give evidence twice.
At some stage, there will be a decision on the prison estates review, which would be the appropriate place to fit in some of the work that has already been done. Some of the debates about how the estates review will proceed fit into the discussions that have already taken place.
The Justice 1 Committee is dealing with the prison estates review and has already questioned Clive Fairweather on his report on Kilmarnock prison. This committee had picked out a few issues such as women's offending and Kilmarnock prison that it wanted to pursue. We had decided only to visit Kilmarnock and now we have a report that we need to complete. The question is whether the report will form part of the prison estates review. However, now that the Justice 2 Committee has visited the prison, I am clear that it should be allowed to complete its report independently of the Justice 1 Committee.
The report will be very useful to the Justice 1 Committee. I am simply pointing out the practicalities of not calling the same witnesses for overlapping reasons. The Justice 1 Committee will have the Justice 2 Committee's report and I am not fussy who takes evidence from Premier Prison Services.
I think that we would be fussy about completing the report.
Certainly. It is your report.
Right. The last item on the agenda is our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which the committee has agreed to take in private.
Meeting continued in private until 13:04.