Prisons
Good morning. I apologise for the late start to today's meeting—it was unavoidable given the various travel problems that people have had.
We move straight to item 1 on the agenda. I welcome the Right Rev Dr Andrew McLellan, who is the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the Rev Graham Blount.
I am sorry, moderator, about the huge gap between us. There are usually members sitting in those chairs and I assure you that their absence means no disrespect to you. I believe that you want to commence by making a short statement to us.
Right Rev Dr Andrew McLellan (Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland):
Thank you, convener. This feels like a Sunday morning, with everybody sitting at the back.
In the context of my genuine gratitude for the opportunity to attend the Justice 1 Committee this morning, I will explain my own context for being here. It brings together two little initiatives that I have undertaken this year as moderator of the general assembly. The first initiative is my visit to every prison in Scotland; an opportunity for which I asked and was readily granted. I have made those visits and, by tomorrow, I will also have visited every Scottish prison which, of course, is not the same as every prison in Scotland.
I also initiated a visit to the Scottish Parliament that lasted over two days. It was set up by Graham Blount—who is beside me—and for that I am grateful. I thought that, in the context of meeting the Scottish Parliament in different ways, it was important to have the opportunity to meet the committee to talk about my visits to prisons.
I know that the committee has seen my leaflet. I have no new information to add, but I will stress two or three things from the leaflet. I stress how astonished I was at how popular the idea of visiting the prisons was among prisons, the general public and the church. There is a cliché that there are no votes in prisons, but I am not so sure. Over the last few weeks, many people have said to me that they are genuinely interested in and concerned about what is happening in Scottish prisons. They said how little they know about the problems and, for some people, my visits were a new opportunity to reflect on such matters. Everything that I do does not always attract universal approval, so I was pleased to have the kind of encouragement to which that little venture has given rise.
Every time that I speak about prisons, I try to say that we should recognise that there has been a sea change in the atmosphere in Scottish prisons in the past 20 years. Since the riots in the early 1980s, when the atmosphere in Scottish prisons was one of menace and confrontation, prison staff at all levels have made huge efforts to engender a more civilised and decent atmosphere in Scotland's prisons. The evidence for that atmosphere is everywhere. It is obvious that, from time to time, there are difficulties in prisons, but the general perception—which I had before I started my visits—that Scotland's prisons are places of fear, terror and confrontation is simply not true.
There are real issues about the morale of Scottish prison staff. The committee knows much more about such issues than I do, but those issues must be spoken about and addressed, because the considerable progress to which I referred depends on the continuing co-operation of the Scottish Prison Service and on its continuing motivation.
I like to think that the churches—the Church of Scotland in particular—could help in the care and treatment of offenders in prison and on their release from prison. I am particularly concerned about the public perception of sex offenders and the release of those offenders. I hope that there will be opportunities for voices to be heard other than those of people who think that it is appropriate to describe released sex offenders in the most brutal and persecuting terms.
Last, I want to say something that is obvious, but which must be said over and over. The problems of Scotland's prisons are very often the problems of Scotland. By transforming regimes or hoping that lots of money will be put into prisons, it is not likely that we will do away with the circumstances and issues that lead, in a variety of ways, to crimes. Only if Scotland addresses a whole clutch of issues—such as drugs, poverty and employment—will prisons be less needed and less inhabited.
Thank you very much.
I want to pick up on the last theme. In "Reflections on visiting the prisons of Scotland", you say that
"only when Scotland is more just and more compassionate will Scotland's prisons be more empty and less sad".
Do you see any potential conflict between what some people see as just and what other people see as just? In particular, is being just the same as administering justice? I suspect that there is a perception out there that people get justice only if the perpetrators of crimes are put away for a long time. How do you square that view with the need for us to be
"more just and more compassionate"?
Justice is a matter of dealing with the person who commits an offence, with the victims of an offence, with the good of society and with the circumstances that lead up to an offence. Justice is not simply a matter of equating a serious crime with a long sentence.
Of course I believe that serious crimes need to be punished heavily—I do not think that justice is served by being soft. However, a society in which opportunity, protection and access to jobs and education are easier for some people than for others is a hard society in which to build real justice.
I want people to think about justice not simply in terms of what happens in the courts, although that is very important. I believe passionately in the independence of judges and would not want to interfere in any sense with what happens in courts. However, I want us to ensure that crimes are not committed because of social injustice. In the document, I make the point that we lock up a disproportionate number of Scotland's poor people. Until we are able to provide just opportunities for access to education, health and housing for Scotland's poor people, that will continue.
Is that the main point that you are driving at? In saying that we are less just and less compassionate than we should be, are you talking about social justice?
Yes, but I am not saying that I wish judges to treat convicted persons more mildly. In the past two months, I have met people who have committed absolutely vile, horrible, dreadful and offensive crimes. It is right that there should be a severe sentencing policy for those who commit horrible crimes.
Good morning, moderator.
I want to talk about the possibility that even people who have committed serious crimes can change. An argument is made that criminals should be locked up because they are seen as unchanging and a threat for ever. We could perhaps talk about rehabilitation and, going on from that, through-care—which you talked about earlier as something that the churches might get involved in. It is important to have provision for prisoners when they leave prison, particularly if they have been there for a long time. Perhaps you could discuss that and give us your thoughts on that.
It seems to me that it is absolutely fundamental that prisons ought to provide at least the opportunities for prisoners to change their life patterns and lifestyles. There has been a change in mood in terms of the way that people talk about rehabilitation. Twenty or 30 years ago, the idea was that rehabilitation was imposed upon people. Today, I notice that the phrase "the correctional system" is creeping into the Scottish Prison Service. I am not quite clear what that phrase means, but I think that the context is that prisons must provide people with the opportunities to make decisions that will heal their lives and get their lives right. There is clear evidence throughout Scotland's prisons that those opportunities are sometimes provided and that those opportunities are sometimes accepted. I could name people whose lives have been changed because of the opportunities that were given to them in prison to address rehabilitation issues.
Nevertheless, it is not true that the opportunities for rehabilitation that are given to people in prison—in other words, the way that people are treated in prison—are the most important influences on what will happen to them when they come out of prison. Those opportunities are important, but the most important influence on what will happen to people when they come out of prison is what happens when they come out of prison. That is to say that the most important things that will prevent people from reoffending are connected to through-care. Housing issues, family issues, job issues and—clearly—drug issues have as much to do with preventing people from reoffending as does a change of heart.
I like to think that the church can help in those areas. Throughout my prison visits, I was astonished to see how highly valued chaplains are in prisons. I would estimate that chaplains are valued more in prisons by a factor of eight than they are in Scottish society as a whole—both by prisoners and by prison staff. Of course, there are all sorts of opportunities for manipulation by both parties, but there is a real understanding that chaplains can play a role in helping people to address issues inside themselves. In particular, chaplains have expertise in helping people to address the difficult and painful issue of personal guilt.
On the issue of release from prison and through-care, there is a mood within our church that we could take real steps forward. Fifty or 100 years ago we did that in providing care for the elderly. Our church, along with other churches in Scotland, has a good record of being pioneers in the provision of care for the elderly. Clearly, society has overtaken us in some ways, although we still do an important job.
I like to think that we are ready to begin to take more steps in providing through-care. As the committee might know, there is a new scheme in which a through-care chaplain is being appointed in connection with premises in Glasgow. I hope that we might be able to move towards occasional provision of buildings for some kind of hostel accommodation or care accommodation for people who are making the difficult transition from prison—where they are able to address some of their internal issues and make some changes in themselves—to being out of prison and finding themselves vulnerable because so many of the circumstances that led to their original offences might still be present.
Good morning, moderator. I want to ask about through-care. You stated that there was a patchwork of services, and that provision was patchy throughout the country. You referred to the fact that some prisons had reasonable through-care services, while others seemed to be lacking. How extensive did you find the lack of through-care services in the prisons that you visited?
I am not absolutely clear just what Michael Matheson asked, but if it was whether I found that there was a lack of through-care, I would say, "Yes, probably."
You referred to the fact that there was a lack of through-care services and that, to some extent, some services were positive. How extensive did you find the lack of through-care services to be throughout the prison service?
In all the prisons to which prisoners were sent close to their release date, every single prison officer said that they were merely scratching the surface of through-care.
In several Scottish prisons, really good things are being done because of the relationships that exist between Apex Trust Scotland, Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending, the churches and a bunch of different bodies. In the prisons that are at the front edge of that, there is good co-ordination between those different bodies, but there are major issues about resources and facilities. In every prison where we spoke about through-care, prison staff and prison governors told us that the issue was important and that they were only just beginning to address it.
Did staff indicate that through-care was improving, or that it was an ongoing problem that never seems to get addressed?
Although my remarks are anecdotal, their value is that they come from the perspective of somebody who did not know about prisons and examined them for one month. My answer to a historical problem is, therefore, anecdotal. Nevertheless, I can say that in two prisons, people told me that they were really proud of the through-care initiatives and projects that had taken place over the last two years.
Would it be fair to say that there has been a lack of a strategic aftercare policy in the prison service?
I cannot say whether there is a lack of strategic policy. What I can say is that, as yet, if there is a policy, it has not produced coherent activity on the ground in all our prisons.
You talked about staff morale, and ended by saying that significant management issues must be dealt with. Could you expand on what those management issues are?
I said that chaplains are ripe for manipulation. Given that—and presuming that moderators are even more ripe for manipulation—it is striking that, in every institution, prison officers told me that they are proud to work in their institutions, but that they find that they are alienated from working for the whole prison service, for the prison authorities and for the people of Scotland. What I say is entirely anecdotal, but in every prison where I was given the opportunity to meet prison officers, although they had a kind of commitment to their own institution, they also had a real feeling of being unable to make progress. They also sensed that their employers did not recognise or value their work.
I do not know how justified those feelings are, but I have had the opportunity to raise them with the Scottish Prison Service. Its staff have indicated to me—I believe them—that a great deal has been done to address those issues, but real intransigences must also be dealt with. I am not in a position to apportion right, neither am I in a position to say where the gravamen of the complaint lies, but it is certainly true that many prison officers feel disaffected.
Is that disaffection because of their employers' lack of recognition of their employees' worth? Prison officers have two employers: the governors and assistant governors—who are their employers within the prison; and their other employers at the SPS's Carlton House headquarters at the Gyle. Are you talking about the far-away tier?
Yes, but that feeling is not specific to prisons. You would find, for example, that many teachers would say that they really love their school, but that they find the national environment in which they are asked to teach quite difficult. That might be a feature of management and modern life in general. However, among the prison officers whom I met, the disparity is clear between the commitment to and motivation for the institution in which they work and the lack of that commitment to and motivation for a career in the Scottish Prison Service.
Might that be because of the structure? It is very much a bipolar structure. There are all the individual prison units and the headquarters, with nothing much in between. It is almost inevitable that the two are going to fall out on quite a few occasions.
That is why I mentioned that—even if it is inevitable, it must still be addressed. The SPS is doing well in trying to address it. I think that it has certain structures between the two levels that you suggested.
One of the striking things for me is exactly the point that the convener made. Before I began the project, I thought that there were Scottish prisons. In fact, there are Barlinnie, Castle Huntly, Peterhead and Dumfries prisons and they are all very different. That is partly to do with the buildings, which are different, and partly to do with their histories, which are also different. It is partly to do with the different constituencies of prisoners and partly to do with the differing styles of governors.
That means that each institution builds up a culture of its own and tends to attract prison officers who feel comfortable with that particular ethos or style. My view is that most prison officers value quite highly the prison in which they work, but still feel disaffected.
Without asking you to name names when you talk about low morale, are there any institutions in which you felt that morale was particularly low or particularly high?
All the visits were carried out in October and November. At that time, the rumours about the prisons estates review were most rife. The press carried all sorts of speculation about the prisons that were likely to close and there is no doubt that there was anxiety in those prisons.
Since then, the SPS has made what I believe to be helpful statements about redundancies and closures. I am not in a position to know whether those who felt most threatened in some prisons in November have been reassured by the statements that the SPS has made.
What was your experience of the morale of the staff whom you met in Barlinnie, who were dealing with prisoners who must continue to slop out? You made some comments about slopping out in your leaflet.
I visited Barlinnie in the context of its being one of the prisons that had been named for possible closure. There had been speculation that the future of Barlinnie might be threatened because of the condition of the building and there was general anxiety about that.
As far as internal sanitation is concerned, I am ashamed to say that I had not really thought about its implications for staff. I considered the fact that slopping out is rotten for prisoners, although we do not know how rotten it is until we see it or, more accurately, smell it. I had not addressed how disgraceful it is that, as part of their working conditions, we require people—whom we, as a nation, employ—to supervise slopping out in Barlinnie. I had the opportunity to be present during slopping out. The comments of the members of staff—and, indeed, the governors—who spoke to me about it, were what I expected; that no decent person could possibly find slopping out anything other than disgusting.
I am very interested in what you had to say about Kilmarnock prison. When I visited prisons and talked to the staff, Kilmarnock prison seemed to worry them and to be part of the uncertainty that they have about their future. Would you elaborate on your thoughts on Kilmarnock? You say in your leaflet that you think that it is a good prison, but that you still have philosophical objections to it. Will you also talk about the morale of the staff in Kilmarnock and whether you think that they are as involved in rehabilitation of prisoners as staff in other prisons are?
My good friend, the Rev Dr Blount, is sitting on my right. His only piece of advice to me this morning was, "If you do not know the answer to the question, say so."
I still do not know what I think about Kilmarnock prison and about private prisons in general. Kilmarnock prison is the only prison that I have asked to go back to see with other people because I want to think more clearly about the issues.
I want to deal with staff morale and the relations of staff with prisoners in general. I thought that staff morale was very high among those whom I met. I was told in every prison that I could go anywhere and meet anybody, but I do not know enough to know whom I did not meet or what I did not see, if you see what I mean. However, the people whom I met felt very up about Kilmarnock prison.
Staff's involvement in helping prisoners to rebuild their lives is a central issue. That is more difficult in general in Kilmarnock prison because the staff to prisoner ratio is very different from that in a non-private prison that is administered entirely by the SPS.
We were present during some good opportunities for prisoners to address issues—in programmes like those that are run throughout the SPS—such as anger management and cognitive skills courses. Those programmes seem to be functioning quite well in Kilmarnock prison. It has the best chaplaincy arrangement of any prison in Scotland, which matters to me, of course.
It is not—on the basis of one short visit—possible for me to make an assessment of the quality of work that is done in Kilmarnock prison compared with a non-private prison, unless the differences are dramatic and striking, or fabulous or distressing. They are not, so I do not want to make an assessment.
There are still issues that trouble me about the ownership of prisons. I am troubled about whether it is appropriate for the state to deprive people of their liberty and then to hand the management of that deprivation to private concerns. Is it appropriate to make profit out of the imprisonment of people, or that the terms under which prisons are managed are secret and confidential?
I still hope that the debate on such issues is not entirely closed and that MSPs will engage with those issues. If it is true—as people tell me—that the argument against private prisons is lost, it is important that the terms of contracts are carefully examined and understood, to ensure that rehabilitation issues—about which I am glad that the committee is concerned—are clearly at the centre of whatever is expected of our private prisons in future.
In your leaflet, "Reflections on visiting the prisons of Scotland", you refer to your visit to Kilmarnock prison and state that beneath the issue of privatised prisons
"there lie a host of related issues about responsibility and profit and vocational commitment".
Would you expand on those three areas? You have mentioned profit and vocational commitment. What are your concerns about responsibility and the use of the privatised model for prisons?
People who have worked as prison officers all their lives came into the service largely—although not entirely—because they felt that it was an opportunity to build a better world. I do not want to be sentimental or over-exaggerate that, but I think that there is a vocational element to people's decision to enter the prison service.
Not many people enter the Scottish Prison Service as prison officers because it is one job among others—it is not that attractive. Unless one felt that in some way it was a good thing to do, one would not enter. I am nervous that that element may not be developed to the same extent in a private prison. The opportunities for career and vocational development for prison officers in a private prison may be more limited because of the expense—it may be harder for those elements to be nourished in a private prison. Kilmarnock has not been open long enough for a rational assessment to be made. Nevertheless, it is important that any anxiety should at least be expressed and examined. That was my first point.
Secondly, I mentioned profit. I have a gut feeling that something is wrong. Prisons are always sad places. There is unhappiness around the families, the victims and the criminals. I feel uneasy that that should be a source of competition from which to make more and more money. That may not be a very articulate unease, but I am not the only person in Scotland to feel it. My church shares it.
As I said to Maureen Macmillan, who asked me to repeat it, we ought to face up to our responsibilities as a society. To deprive somebody's father of his liberty—to deprive a person of their liberty—is such a radical and potentially damaging thing to do that we ought to face up to the responsibility and costs of doing it. If we decide that the costs are too high, that might help us to address ways of dealing with offenders other than imprisoning them.
As Phil Gallie is not here, let me put the other argument. It is early days for Kilmarnock and one swallow does not make a summer. If it appears that the private model works—in the sense that it delivers some of the goods that we would expect a reasonable prison to deliver—is not there an argument for, if not forgetting, putting to one side whatever moral objections we have? The name of the game is getting a system that works.
There are a variety of ifs in what you have just said. The answer is that if everything is good, and the other arguments are bad, you should go with the good rather than with the bad—but none of them is as yet.
The tone of what I wrote is concessionary. I hated Kilmarnock much less than I wanted to. However, it seems important that we recognise that Kilmarnock is our only private prison and that the experience of private prisons in other parts of the world is not universally encouraging. The kind of heated argument that went on before the first private prison was established—and there was heated argument—has not been brought to an end by the evidence from Kilmarnock. Nobody would say that we have seen enough in Kilmarnock in the past three years for such arguments to have been completely obliterated. As long as Kilmarnock is still in early times, it is important that we—people such as me—do not say that the moral argument is completely lost. We need to keep bringing it up and allowing it to be addressed to help our politicians to recognise that there are still many people in Scotland who feel uneasy about privatised prisons.
I have two further questions, one of which is fairly trivial. In your opening remarks, you talked about Scottish prisons and prisons in Scotland, and said that they were not the same thing. It has been suggested that the state hospital at Carstairs is the difference; is it, or is there another difference?
I am feeling smug—I am going to Camp Zeist tomorrow. I was hoping that somebody would ask what the difference was. I am going to the state hospital at Carstairs next month, but that is not a prison.
No. In some senses it is a prison, but legally it is not.
You talked about how much the atmosphere has improved over the past 20 years. What is your impression of the extent to which that improvement has helped to reduce the likelihood of prisoners reoffending once they leave prison? Obviously, the public are interested in that question.
I indicated to Maureen Macmillan that that is only one of the factors that affect recidivism. The circumstances in which people are released and their particular personal histories are mixed in.
Instead of answering your question statistically, I will say that last week I was at the Shotts special unit, which houses some of the most difficult prisoners in Scotland. As people there said to me, if that is the bottom of the Scottish Prison Service, we should be proud of the service. The unit provides an opportunity for the most difficult prisoners in Scotland to engage daily and over a long period of time with issues of reoffending. From the conversations that I had with prisoners there—again, this is anecdotal evidence, which I would not wish to exaggerate, as I am not a professor of criminology—I know that they say that that kind of environment is determinative in changing attitudes. Of course, people say that in prison anyway, but I suspect that one would not have heard that in a prison in Scotland before 1980.
I am sorry for arriving late—it seems that I have been on trains for days.
The Parliament will continue to be interested in prisons and how they are run. They are a big issue for the committee and the rest of Parliament. I think that the involvement of the church is useful because it brings to the matter a vision that is different from that of people such as me who have been in the trade all our life. How do you envisage the church's role continuing? You have acted as an individual moderator, but your reign—if that is the right word—will end and I am frightened that the involvement will stop. Do you envisage a continuing, structured role for the viewpoint that you and people like you can bring to the debate, into which we can feed? I realise that that is a very garbled question.
It is a good question. It matters. It is one of the many existential questions that I must address about what happens to me after May. I am pleased to say that there is a clear sign in two or three different areas that the momentum that began with this programme will continue. For example, soon after the visits, we provided the opportunity for the people in our churches who are responsible for the voluntary prison chaplaincy, one of whom is in the public gallery today, to meet the Scottish Prison Service to talk about developments in chaplaincy. That was very constructive. The visits have helped to build a new atmosphere of chaplaincy and I feel positive about the way in which chaplaincy is operating. That is partly to do with the work of Stuart Fulton and Brian Gowans, who are the Scottish Prison Service's advisers on chaplaincy, but it is also to do with the new momentum in our church and the new receptiveness in the Scottish Prison Service as a result of the visits.
Secondly, as a result of the visits, the church and nation committee of our church, which addresses social and political issues, is holding a day conference to address issues relating to prisons and criminal justice.
Thirdly—I may have been talking about this before Mr Jackson arrived—developments in through-care are beginning to take shape in our church. We are currently advertising for a new through-care chaplain. I hope that it may be possible for us to be more imaginative and active in providing hostel accommodation.
The most important thing is the remark with which I began, which Mr Jackson certainly missed: I have been astonished by the enthusiasm within the church for this little project. I have received many letters and many people have come to see me about it. They have said that it is an important thing for churches to be involved in. As it happens, my congregation has quite a history of involvement with Edinburgh prison. Several other congregations have spoken to me about how they might become involved. Clearly, there is a geographical limitation, but nevertheless I think that churches will be more and more anxious to provide placements for people who are on different forms of release programmes. Our church has had a couple of little headlines from our policy of trying to build a more humane attitude to the release of sex offenders and I am fairly confident that that kind of initiative will continue.
As there are no more questions, I thank you for coming today. The committee was appreciative of the initiative that you took and today's session has given us more food for thought.
I am grateful for the privilege that you have given me and I wish you well in your work.
For the record, I should say that we have apologies from Phil Gallie and Euan Robson.