I welcome Phil Hornsby, who is general secretary of the Prison Service Union. I refer members to paper J1/02/14/02, which has been kindly given to us and which outlines the PSU's background. Perhaps Mr Hornsby would like to say something about the Prison Service Union for the Official Report.
The Prison Service Union was formed in 1988. Many people have described it as a modernising union. We believe in the concept of partnership with our members' employers and we try to be moderate in all matters. We have never been involved in any form of industrial action and do not believe that that is the right way to solve problems in prisons and custodial services in general. The union is administered by a committee of six people, who are elected every three years. I am the general secretary and report to that elected committee.
Is it in your constitution that your members cannot strike, or has that simply come about by agreement?
There is nothing in the constitution that prevents a strike, but the constitution is clear about the union's beliefs. We do not believe that striking is the way to handle industrial relations problems.
Would it be possible to strike, if your members wanted to do so?
It would be possible.
How many members do you have at Kilmarnock prison?
About 150.
What is that in percentage terms?
I think that that constitutes between 60 and 70 per cent of the staff who are eligible for membership.
Are you affiliated to the Trades Union Congress?
No.
We have heard evidence from the Prison Officers Association Scotland, which told us that it is difficult to make a comparison between the public sector and the private sector, because key performance indicators for the public sector are far higher than contractual obligations of the private sector. Do you want to comment on that?
I do not share that view. One feature that privatisation of custodial services has produced is minimum standards for prisoners in respect of the number of hours that they spend out of cell on recreational activities and educational services, for example. That seems to be welcome. I am not aware that performance targets in the public sector are any higher than in the private sector.
The Scottish Prison Service estates review states that for the price of one prisoner place in the public sector, two prisoner places of equivalent quality can be provided by the private sector. Do you agree with that conclusion?
Yes, I think that I do.
The SPS's operational view is that about 700 places is the optimum size for a new prison in respect of prison security and stability, performance and cost efficiency. Do you agree?
Yes. Generally speaking, the smaller the prison population, the more manageable it becomes.
The view of the SPS is that 700 places is the optimum size. Are you saying that you do not necessarily accept that? Could the optimum size of the prison be smaller?
If that figure is based on economics, I could not possibly comment.
However, you think that there is a place for smaller prisons because they make it easier to manage prisoners and contain potential problems.
Yes.
One option that is considered in the estates review is a public-private partnership, in which the private sector both delivers the building to a required specification and provides facilities management, but the core operational work is retained by the public sector. However, the Executive claims that the PPP model
That is a difficult question. Having looked at the operation in France, where such a system operates, I can understand what the Executive is saying. The French system has not been tremendously successful because there seem to be too many administrative difficulties between the two parties. I take the view that, if we are to have private prisons, they will need to be administered by the private companies at all levels. Unless I misunderstand you, you suggest that the private sector could construct the buildings and provide some services while operational command of the prison is retained by the public sector. The French experience has shown that there are inherent difficulties in having two sets of managers.
From what you have said, does it follow that a new prison that is built and operated by the private sector will not have those problems?
I do not believe that such a prison would have those problems. England's experience has been that privately managed prisons are successful.
How many prisons are there in that category?
I believe that there are 10 or 12.
Has your evidence shown that those prisons have succeeded?
Yes. Those prisons have succeeded. A few of them had tremendous difficulties in the early days of the experiment—which is what it was when it started—but those prisons are now without exception very successful.
As a matter of interest, does the PSU have any members within public sector prisons?
Yes.
Do you have PSU members within public sector prisons in Scotland?
We have none in Scotland, but we have such members in England.
The Scottish Prison Service has stated that the delivery of a private build, public operate prison would present "extreme difficulties", because the integrity of the physical fabric of a prison is inextricably linked to its operation. You have probably already answered the question, but are there problems with having two sets of managers?
Yes.
How do those problems manifest themselves?
It is difficult to know because, in the UK, we have no experience of joint ventures in which the public service administers a facility that has been constructed by and is managed by the private sector. We can relate only to the French experience.
Will you elaborate on what the French experience has been?
The French have experienced enormous problems between the public sector and the private management.
I want to come back to that but I will first let Maureen Macmillan ask her question.
Mr Hornsby said that he thinks that privately built, privately run prisons are more successful than prisons in the public sector. What do you mean by more successful? Are they more successful in rehabilitating prisoners or in locking up prisoners?
Generally speaking, the big advantage of privatisation of prisons is the fact that it has created—perhaps unwittingly—the nearest thing that we have to a set of minimum standards for prisoners. Those minimum standards are for things such as time out of cells and for activities that take place no matter what else happens. Those rules in the contract are adhered to strictly so that prisoners know where they stand. They know that they will get X hours of education in a week, X hours of out-of-cell activities, X number of visits and so on. However, there is inconsistency in the public sector prisons, which do not all operate according to the same rules.
So, life in the private sector prisons is more structured.
Yes.
The content of what they are doing does not matter—it is just that they know what they are doing.
The content is equally important. I am not saying that the public sector does not do this, but the private sector provides first-class education services, inculcation of the work ethic into prisoners and recreational activities that compare favourably with those that are offered at any prison that I have seen anywhere in the world.
I will leave it there—other members might have follow-up questions.
I want to pick up on something to do with private build, public operate prisons presenting extreme difficulties. As I understand it, one of your arguments is that we know who is taking on the risks or insurance for a private build, private run prison. Is that correct?
Yes.
Do you know who is taking on the risks or insurance at Kilmarnock prison?
No, I am afraid that I do not.
Do you have any comments on the Yarlswood prison experience? There appears to have been conflict over who took on the risks for that building.
I do not know enough about the matter to answer your question.
So, when you say that the integrity of the fabric of the building is inextricably linked to a prison's operation, that is not entirely the case, because you do not know about insurance. However, insurance is crucial, is it not?
I suppose it is.
There might be confusion, even in private build, private run prisons, over who carries which liabilities.
Yes, I accept that.
I was going to ask you a simple question—to which you probably do not know the answer—about who owns Kilmarnock prison. The POAS says that ownership was transferred to the Home Office. However, that would not be within your ken.
My understanding is that Kilmarnock prison is owned by Premier Custodial Group Ltd. There are lots of different companies in that group and the only thing that they seem to have in common is the word "Premier" in their title. I think that the prison belongs to one of those companies.
So, it is owned by a separate company. Is that company responsible for the heritable property of the company group?
I do not know.
At least I have got further this time—I have got a name.
I want to return to what goes on in the prisons and what programmes the prisoners are offered. In his report on Kilmarnock prison, the chief inspector of prisons was concerned about the lack of
The chief inspector of prisons was right to identify that lack, which is one of the features of the operation that the management of Kilmarnock prison is addressing as a result of the report.
Is not that lack a result of the contract? Is not the contract so inflexible—
I have never seen the contract.
The perception is that the contract was based on the prisoners' being at work rather than in rehabilitation.
It is a matter of perception of the programmes that are in place to address offending behaviour. The educational programme, the recreational activities and the opportunities for staff to relate to prisoners all contribute to that end. However, as a result of the chief inspector's report, the company is now considering a classroom-type programme in which prisoners will be invited to discuss their offending behaviour.
I will follow up the matter of how prison officers relate to prisoners. I take it that you do not equate employment with rehabilitation. Do you consider employment in prison to be a kind of rehab?
Employment contributes to rehabilitation. Instilling the work ethic in an offender is good.
My next question will relate to our later questions on how staff feel about safety. When I went unannounced to Kilmarnock, there were 27 prisoners to one prison officer in the welding shed. Do prison officers have any opportunity to be involved in rehab or have contact with prisoners in the ratio that is used in rehab?
No. I agree that staffing levels are far too low. In most prisons, when prisoners work in workshops, the function of officers is to get prisoners to work. Building relationships with officers is usually done during recreational time or time out on association—when prisoners mix with other prisoners and with staff.
I will separate out the element of rehab that I am talking about. When prisoners work, they are simply occupied, but no interaction takes place at that time.
No. Very little interaction takes place.
As we said, the fact that the contract is work-centred means that there is less room for, for example, anger management programmes in the prisoner's day.
That is correct.
Phil Hornsby said that the 27:1 ratio is too low. It has been reported that staff at Kilmarnock prison feel isolated from other SPS establishments. Do your members in Kilmarnock feel isolated?
No. Sometimes our members believe that they are isolated, but that is a result of what they read in the press. I continue to see such negative reports, which are common to all private prisons. The situation is the same in England and Wales, where such negative reports keep surfacing. When what has been reported is examined closely, it is often found that what was reported was not the case. I am sure that a sense of isolation is not what concerns staff at Kilmarnock.
The committee has heard evidence that staff at Kilmarnock have sometimes felt frightened. The chief inspector of prisons reported that, in the past 12 months, the number of incidents of prisoner-on-prisoner violence has almost doubled, which impinges on staff morale, too. Does the level of violence concern your members? Do they think that violence could also be directed at them?
I receive few reports of concerns about the level of violence, but I receive almost daily reports from staff that they are frightened about what might happen because of the very low staffing levels.
The chief inspector of prisons' report said that Kilmarnock's drugs strategy was somewhat "superficial and uncoordinated". What do your members feel about the drugs strategy?
They share that view. The staff tell me that there is not enough time to do the job properly, because the number of staff is insufficient.
Recently, the press contained a report—I will not quote it verbatim, because I do not have a copy—that a nurse who had worked at Kilmarnock said that a casual attitude was taken to the dispersal of drugs and medication to prison officers. Do you know about that?
Yes. Recently, I became involved in an officer's disciplinary case. A matter that became apparent during that case was the lackadaisical administration of paracetamol. I pointed out to a director of the prison that that was a dangerous practice. Paracetamol is a dangerous drug if large quantities are taken at once. There seemed to be a lack of control over the administration of paracetamol.
Where was the paracetamol destined? I am trying to follow what you are telling us.
In the circumstance to which I am referring, supplies of paracetamol were available for staff to give to prisoners during the night. That meant that those tablets were just pushed under the door on a piece of paper. The prisoner, therefore, did not have our advantage of being able to read warnings on the bottle about the dangers of paracetamol. In addition to that, there was no control over, or record of, how many tablets had been administered. I found that fact to be particularly disturbing.
How has the situation changed?
I am talking about something that has happened in the past two to three weeks. I am not aware of steps having been taken to rectify that matter.
That is a matter that we would want to raise because the nurse who complained was disparaged by the private prison service as someone who was just out of sorts—if I can put it that way.
On that issue, it is clear that you have experience of private prisons in England. Is the type of procedure that you described common practice? If not, what is the common procedure for the administration of medication?
Yes, I think that that procedure is common practice in private prisons. I do not know why that should be the case.
On health, are any of your union members also members of the nursing service part of Kilmarnock prison?
Yes.
I am looking at Clive Fairweather's follow-up inspection report of 14 and 15 March, which states:
I could not disagree with the report. The nursing service is a vital part of the prison. However, the nursing staff situation is, in many ways, similar to the experiences that we have had with the general recruitment of staff in Kilmarnock. There are too few staff and they are paid too little. I do not need to tell the committee about the high levels of staff turnover in Kilmarnock since the prison opened. The committee will have those statistics. The situation is getting better and there are all sorts of reasons for that, but there is still higher staff turnover than one would expect for a prison at this stage of its development.
Do the nursing staff receive the same rates of pay as they would receive in the national health service?
I am afraid that I do not know.
I want to move on to staffing levels and pay and conditions. Much has been said in the media about the difference between staffing and pay and conditions in private sector and those in public sector prisons. Can you comment on the difference between the pay and conditions of staff at Kilmarnock and those who do a similar type of job in the public sector?
Yes. The Kilmarnock staff are paid less, particularly now that the SPS has introduced new pay scales for its prison officers. That puts the Kilmarnock staff on £5,000 or £6,000 a year less than the public sector equivalents.
You are saying that the low pay of the staff and their poor conditions are a result of the contracting authority; that is, the SPS.
Yes.
Are you also saying that in drafting the contract for Kilmarnock prison, the SPS paid more attention to what happens to prisoners than it did to what happens to the staff who are working there?
Indeed.
How do breaks during the working day and holiday entitlement for staff at Kilmarnock prison compare with those for staff in other prisons?
We have serious problems at Kilmarnock. Very few staff get any breaks at all. There is some confusion about how that situation arose. In his first report on the prison, the chief inspector of prisons noted that the staff asked to spend less time in the prison. I am not sure that that was accurate.
Are you saying that for the past three years the majority of staff at Kilmarnock prison have been unable to take a meal break in the course of what could be a 13-hour shift?
Yes.
Why has it taken three years for that issue to be addressed?
I cannot talk about the first year, as my union was not involved with the prison at that time. We have been involved with the prison for about two years. Kilmarnock prison has taken advantage of the availability of an expert on staff attendance systems and has paid a consultant to come in and devise such a system. There are difficulties with the span of the working day and the working time regulations. Kilmarnock prison unlocks prisoners' doors at 7 o'clock in the morning, which is earlier than in most Scottish prisons, and locks them at quarter to 10 at night, which is later than in most of the public prisons. That means that staff are required to be on duty again only nine hours after they get off duty at 10 o'clock. The law requires them to have 11 hours free of duty. That is an inherent problem with the prison regime.
What do the staff do? When do they eat if they are on for 13 hours?
Usually, one of them is sent to the canteen to fetch meals for the others. They usually try to grab something to eat while they are working. The situation is most unsatisfactory but it is now being addressed.
After three years.
Yes.
You mentioned problems with staffing levels and I note that the chief inspector of prisons, in his most recent report, described staffing levels in one hall as being "dangerously low". It is estimated that staffing levels in private prisons are about 25 per cent below those in public sector prisons. Will you comment on the staffing problems at Kilmarnock?
The situation is no different from that in any of the other private prisons. It is not rocket science to work out that the only way in which a private prison can be made profitable is by paying the staff less or having fewer of them. That is how profits are generated. If you are going to have the same number of staff and pay them the same, there is not much point in operating a private prison.
If you agree that Kilmarnock prison is understaffed, what increase do you think would be required to bring the level up to the proper staffing complement?
It would require an increase of around 20 per cent.
On staff turnover, you mentioned that there has been a reduction in the rate at Kilmarnock, although previously it had been too high. The rate has reduced to 14 per cent from 32 per cent in the course of a year. Why has there been such a dramatic drop in the rate of staff turnover?
Some of it has to do with the job situation in the local community. I keep reading reports about companies closing down in East Ayrshire. People are more likely to stay in their current job in those circumstances.
Is there an issue about the training that staff get before they go to work in the halls?
The issue is not so much training. It is difficult to get through to staff how challenging the job is. I am not sure what management could do to improve that, other than have a body of experienced staff to lend support to new members when they join the service.
Thank you.
I want to return to that line of questioning. I will quote from a response that a prison officer sent me, following the visit that the Justice 2 Committee made to Kilmarnock. The prison officers looked at the report of the visit and made a hand-written response. Will you please comment on the following response to my comment that the visit was stage-managed?
That was the case until December of last year when the union said that enough was enough and we would not tolerate that sort of thing. Management was using a system that is known as time off in lieu. The problem was created by a quirk in the system that related to remuneration for additional hours worked. The problem was that people who did additional hours could not get their time off.
However, the system lasted for a considerable time.
It did.
The second point was about staffing levels. I understand that, when the contract for staffing levels was negotiated with the SPS, no account was taken of the fact that prison officers in Scotland escort prisoners to court and so on. Those duties compound the problem of low staffing levels. Is that correct?
I do not know, but at present such duties are an enormous drain on resources. It is one of the problems that contribute to the unpredictability of the staffing levels in the prison.
Do you know whether that distinction was made? I understand that escort duty is privatised in England.
It is, but I do not know.
You mentioned that a private prison such as Kilmarnock could do with a 20 per cent increase in its complement of prison officers.
Yes.
Could the prison continue to operate more economically than a comparable prison in the public sector?
Yes. I am sure that it could.
How much of an increase could be made? You mentioned a 20 per cent increase.
I am not an economist, but speaking as a trade unionist, I have to say that we do not anticipate that our members in the private sector will get similar rates of pay to those offered in the public sector. It seems unrealistic to expect that they would, as to do that would remove the purpose of privatising the prison. The company has to make a profit somewhere. It makes its profit because it operates with fewer staff at lower wages. That may be an over-simplification of the case, but that is the only way that it can work.
Would I be correct in saying that, to secure the safety of staff, your main representation is on the number of staff?
Yes.
Rather than wages.
That is not to lessen the importance we attach to wages. They need to be higher than they are, but that is not to say that they need to be up to public sector rates.
We have been given conflicting information about the pension system for your members. Will you clarify the facts? What does the company pay and what do your people pay? Are there other points that you would like to make about the pension system?
It is simple. The company will pay up to 3 per cent of gross salary, provided that the employee pays a similar amount.
What percentage of your members choose to pay in their 3 per cent and take advantage of the pension?
The information that I have is that about 25 per cent of them do so.
So three quarters of them do not take up a pension. I may be asking you to read your members' minds, but is that because they see themselves as transient, and they think that it is not worth taking up the option for a year or two?
It is because they simply cannot afford it.
How does that pension entitlement compare with the public sector entitlement?
I understand that there are differences between the Scottish Prison Service and Her Majesty's Prison Service, in England. HM Prison Service has a non-contributory pension scheme for staff, but I am not sure what happens in the SPS estate.
I think that Michael Matheson touched on staff safety. I will put a couple of points to you that my informant made to me. He states:
That is one of the problems with surveillance cameras generally. I have been told that they would never secure a conviction if one prisoner quickly punched another one, because the probability is that it would happen between frames, or some such technical explanation.
My informant made another point about how dangerous it can be in the prison. He states:
No, I do not. I have not heard reports of that nature.
He also states:
Yes.
Michael Matheson has raised that point. I do not want to go through all the points that have been raised, but someone has taken the trouble to read the report and add his comments. He states that there is a
That is a fair comment.
It seems that the staff are in an invidious position. They are underpaid and overworked. The system has now changed, but they were due the company time and were disciplined if they did not work that time. They are not secure in the system. They are in a vulnerable position and they are inexperienced.
Yes. That is the problem with low staffing levels in prisons.
It is a pretty damning picture.
It is, but to balance that, I should point out that the contracting authority seems to have been content to go along with the situation.
So the SPS was happy with the situation.
Yes.
I want to ask more questions about pay, although we have covered many of the issues.
They feel undervalued because of their level of pay. I have never accepted the argument that the level should be determined by what the local job market can stand. I suggest that few jobs in the local community are as challenging as that of prison officer. The officers are underpaid and, if the company wishes to retain good and loyal staff who will develop over the years, as staff in the public sector do, it will have to get its act together and pay its staff a bit more money.
Yes, it is. Thank you for that information.
The opportunities are as good as they can be, given the constraint that there is just one contract in Scotland at the moment. The company promotes almost exclusively from within. That is to be applauded. At Kilmarnock, there are lots of examples of people going in on the ground floor and working their way up. For the ambitious, there are tremendous opportunities.
Working their way up to what?
To supervisor levels and into management grades.
How much is a supervisor paid?
Some of our members are at the first supervisor level and their pay has gone up from around £13,000 to around £22,000 a year. That is a big gap. Supervisors and managers are fairly well paid.
How many supervisors are there?
I am sorry, but I do not know off the top of my head. You have caught me out there.
Do not worry—we can find out.
They are getting much easier. The company has changed an awful lot in the past year and there is now quite a refreshing attitude to industrial relations and to getting things right. I do not think that Premier Prison Services would say that they had got things right yet. They acknowledge weaknesses in staff pay and conditions.
What is the process for negotiating pay and conditions? I believe that there is a joint committee. How does it work?
A body of managers and union members meets frequently. Initially, that happens at local level but, as with most such things, an impasse is invariably reached, at which point senior colleagues and I get involved. That is what happened this year.
You mentioned the fact that there is a £5,000 differential between pay for prison officers in the public sector and pay for prison officers in the private sector. You mentioned that you would like a 20 per cent increase in the number of staff. By roughly how much would you like the differential of £5,000 to be reduced?
I would not want to put a figure on it. We want as much as possible for our members.
I would like to ask about the contract and the need to comply with it. I understand that, if there are assaults in the prison, the company is fined. Does that have the effect of reclassifying incidents? Do your members tell you that?
No, they do not.
So you do not think that we should be concerned that serious assaults are being reclassified as something else. I think that that is something that Clive Fairweather alluded to, and might even have stated, in his report.
That undermines the integrity of the SPS controller who is resident in the prison. His role is to ensure that such things do not happen. I know that he has his ear to the ground and I do not think that he misses anything of that nature.
I might put that to Clive Fairweather when he comes before the committee.
You have knowledge of Kilmarnock and of a large number of English prisons in which your members work. Are there things that we do better in Scotland with regard to the contract and the involvement of the prison administration, or are there things that the English do better and from which we could learn?
I have not really noticed any difference at all in the two contracting authorities, but I feel particularly strongly about the apparent injustice between the public prisons and the private prisons. Not everything that goes wrong in a private prison is down to the company that runs it. Low staffing levels can be laid firmly at the door of the contracting authorities. They are aware of the staffing levels and they know how many people they need to run their own prisons. It seems reckless in the extreme to allow other prisons to operate with far fewer staff—a dangerously low level—just because they are privately managed.
There seem to be serious defects in the contract drawn up by our side.
Yes.
As you know, many of us have great difficulty in getting information about Premier Prison Services, Kilmarnock Prison Services and other members of that corporate family. How successful is your union in getting information?
I have never been refused anything that I have asked for.
Have you seen the whole contract?
No, I have not.
Have you asked for it?
No, I have not.
If you asked for it, it would be interesting to see what you got.
We shall see.
Perhaps we should pose that challenge to you. If you are successful, we could have you back to give evidence on it, because we cannot get to see it all. Will you take up that challenge?
Yes, I will.
Thank you. That is excellent and very helpful.
It was not a briefing; it regarded operational issues concerning some recent incidents, which were well publicised.
That is fine. Wires must have been crossed. I am delighted that you could come. I would like us to continue on a harmonious basis. We want to be helpful to the Scottish Prison Service.
I have a slight sense of déjà vu, because Michael Matheson, Paul Martin and I had a helpful and informative visit to Barlinnie yesterday. However, we will now get some information on the record. We discussed staff morale and we heard from various people that morale is, or was, low. Is it getting better? Was the low morale related to uncertainty over the prison estates review, or was it due to inadequate communication in the jail because of the huge pressure of work that is imposed on staff as a result of the movements of prisoners?
Not knowing the recommendations of the consultation on the estates review gave rise to concern and frustration rather than low morale. Staff were concerned because Barlinnie is one of the prisons that is central to the review. On the results of the review, there is concern about the reduction in staffing, even though guarantees have been given that there will be no redundancies and no cash cut to wages. Staff perceive that there is more stability, because they know the recommendations that have been made on the future of Barlinnie and that it will not close.
My second question is on the number of prisoners and what you would like to happen at Barlinnie if money can be found for it. The prison estates review suggests that Barlinnie should have around 500 prisoners. The figure of 800 has been suggested, but at the moment you have more than that, because you are grossly overcrowded. What would be the best figure? What categories of people should you deal with? What changes to buildings would be required to achieve that desirable figure?
There is a lot in those questions. I cannot speculate on the outcome of the consultation process on what will happen at Barlinnie, but I will say that the site is invaluable. I have said that to people and it was minuted and stated in the estates review report.
Briefly, what should be done to the building to achieve that optimum figure?
The buildings are antiquated—as I think I said in my written evidence—and Victorian. They are just not fit for the purpose. It will not matter what we do with them—
Sorry, but I think that most members have been to Barlinnie. I have been round it a couple of times, so we know the situation.
I wanted to state that for the record. I had visited Barlinnie for some reason once before, but even I would have to say that a significant investment would be required to upgrade the facilities. Even then, the prison would not have the ancillary buildings that are needed to support education programmes and a whole range of activities. The prison is bitty and unplanned; it is not serviceable. That sounds awful, but that is the fact. A significant amount of money—and the inconvenience of rehousing prisoners—would be required to do anything on that site.
I missed whether Donald Gorrie asked this question, but what would happen to the staff if, instead of Barlinnie's population being reduced to what appears to be a reasonable figure of 800, it was reduced to around 500, as is proposed?
I do not have any facts on whether we will ever get to 500, but the history of Barlinnie indicates that that might be difficult to reach.
Perhaps if Barlinnie was built for 500, you might have 40 per cent overcrowding again and have a prison population of near to 800.
That depends on a multitude of things, including the judicial system and whether there are alternatives to imprisonment. The estates review report indicates that the number of staff will decrease by about 260. There will be no redundancies or cash cuts. Basically, as we have a turnover of around 40 staff a year, we could absorb a fair number of staff losses over six years by not recruiting.
Alternatively, the staff will go and work in a private prison.
I would not say that.
If we were to build privately run prisons, some of the staff would presumably go to them.
They might choose to go to them but, as I said, the figures that I have for the turnover in Barlinnie over six years work out at about 240 to 260 members of staff.
Can you explain again what you said about cash cuts? The issue has come up before. I think that Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the SPS, said that there would be no cash cuts. What does that mean?
It means that, although we would employ staff in other duties that might have been advertised at a lower salary, we would protect their salary.
Or freeze it.
Yes.
Would they get the pay increases that would apply to that salary level?
You would need to ask the people who are involved in the negotiations. I have not heard about a freeze. I have heard that there will be no cash cuts and that pay will be protected.
I thank Bill McKinlay for organising our visit yesterday, which was helpful and informative.
I can understand the difficulties associated with a full rebuild on the site in terms of demolition, housing prisoners and trying to find space on the site. I have already indicated that refurbishment would be expensive and would not suit the needs of the service for the next 50 or 60 years, given what we are attempting to do with prisoners, as it would result in a bitty and ill-planned arrangement.
If what is proposed in the estates review goes ahead, will it be five to six years before slopping out is ended at Barlinnie?
From my reading of the situation, that will be the case if we adopt the quickest recommendation after the consultation process.
If, after the consultation period, a decision is made to re-examine the proposals and to consider options other than private—whether they be the private-build, public-staffed option or the public-build, public-staffed option—that might throw up further delays in the building of new prisons, which could mean that slopping out at Barlinnie continues for longer. If there were to be such a delay, would the existing halls have to be refurbished to provide sanitation in the cells?
I would like to think that that would be considered, given the time scale. However, I would also have to consider the cost involved in doing that six years from now. The outcome of the upcoming court case on slopping out could also have an impact on that.
Do you consider a delay of more than six years to end slopping out to be acceptable?
I do not consider slopping out to be acceptable or suitable now. That is why I am pleased that there has been an estates review to end slopping out and that that review is in the public forum. I am not blaming anyone. I was going to say that the situation that has arisen is the culmination of years of neglect, but I do not necessarily mean neglect, as we have maintained the estate as we have gone along. Until five years ago, the issue of toilets was not significant, so I do not seek to blame anyone.
I want to return to the issue of overcrowding and its impact on what goes on inside prisons. You heard the evidence on what happens in Kilmarnock prison and how the prisoners are outwith their cells from 7 am until 9.45 pm. They go to workshops. Perhaps there is not much in terms of anger management programmes, but things are happening in the prison all the time. If there is 40 per cent overcrowding, that must have a severe impact on the programmes that can be delivered. Will you tell us about that impact? What would happen if there was not 40 per cent overcrowding? What would be the ideal programme in the prison?
We delivered to our target on programmes last year. Programmes must continue and we try to protect them, no matter what the circumstances. We must also protect people's ability to get to court and to have visits. Overcrowding impinges on other areas, such as recreation. I try not to let it impinge on work activity, because it is important to have work in a prison, as Mr Hornsby said. We have around 650 places a day and we have split the establishment into two so that people go to work for four hours at a time, either in the morning or the afternoon. If they are not at work, they may be engaged in programmes, education or visits. If they are not engaged in such activities, they are in their cells.
How much time do they spend in their cells?
That depends on the individual and what they are engaged in. They should spend as little time as possible in their cells. However, prisoners at Barlinnie spend much more time in their cells than would be the case in Kilmarnock prison.
I presume that they spend more time in their cells as result of overcrowding.
Obviously. We still have to do the same things to manage the prison, whether there are 800, 900, 1,000 or 1,200 prisoners.
We discussed the projected rise in the prison population. Many prisoners will probably be short-term prisoners. If we want to combat the rise in prisoner numbers, we must look at recidivism. What are you doing in Barlinnie to reduce recidivism? What programmes are specifically targeted at reducing it?
I have looked at the figures because our esteemed guests yesterday raised the issue with me. I have tried to establish, for my information, what is happening. Executive statisticians have been trying to predict and project forward. Barlinnie has had a general increase in adults convicted short term, adult remands and young offender remands. That is not a significant across-the-board increase, but the total numbers have increased quite a lot. We discussed the figures last week in preparation for this morning's meeting. The population figure of 6,500 is the highest that the service has incurred. There are nine programmes for convicted prisoners and four for remand prisoners. If you want, I can quickly list the programmes.
Yes, please do so for the record.
For convicted prisoners, there are the STOP 2000 programme and courses in anger management, cognitive skills, problem solving skills training, drug rehabilitation and drug education/harm reduction/alcohol awareness. There is a new deal course, run with the Employment Service, for getting people into work and education. There is also the community sports leaders award and the employability pre-release course. For our remand prisoners, we have courses in drug awareness, activity support, alcohol awareness, a first-aid course called Heartstart and adult literacy. We also have education programmes and work.
That is a comprehensive list. Are you prepared to say whether some prisoners in Barlinnie should not be there? Do you feel that the courts should be using other sentences or disposals for short-term prisoners?
The courts must determine whether to use alternatives to prison sentences. I have to carry out what is on the warrant. If alternatives were tried, one would expect a reduction in the size of the prison population. However, we apparently have higher detection and prosecution rates now. Crime could be decreasing, but the conviction rates could be increasing.
How much difference would it make if something else were done with fine defaulters and people who have alcohol and drug problems? What percentage of prisoners falls into those categories?
It is difficult to determine that accurately, because we are unsure of the size of the dependency problem. We know that people are coming in who have used drugs, but we do not know whether they are dependent or casual users. We must deal with that issue by concentrating in the short term on assessing needs and risks. When the prisoners are inducted, they are asked whether they take drugs, but there is no test to determine how heavy their usage is. We have a less-than-exact science for determining that. Currently, it is not worth making a guess.
I want to move on to the issue of the sex offenders programme in Barlinnie, which we raised previously with you. Some committee members have grave concerns about the proposal to close HMP Peterhead and dismantle its sex offenders programme.
The figure is 46.
On 13 November, you also said that some of them were long-term prisoners who were waiting to be transferred to the STOP 2000 programme at Peterhead. How many have been transferred since then?
I have only two long-term prisoners who await release. Nobody is waiting to go to Peterhead.
Are the other sex offenders short-term prisoners?
I have two long-term prisoners who await release and another two long-term prisoners, but they are not waiting to go to Peterhead.
Is the number that you gave us for short-term prisoners?
Yes.
Will you tell us again for the record the definition of short term?
A short term is less than four years.
I will read from the Official Report of our meeting on 13 November 2001. You gave evidence that you had been the governor of Shotts, so you spoke about Shotts as well as Peterhead. You said:
I think that I said that the programme is accredited.
I do not dispute that.
The programme can be and is run in other prisons. It is better for sex offenders and vulnerable prisoners to have a separate estate or segment of an establishment. That could be a prison on its own. I was interested in Professor Marshall's comment in a recent report that the maximum number of sex offenders that should be held at Peterhead is about 400. He said that if the figure were higher than that, two establishments should each hold a smaller number of prisoners—230 could be held in Peterhead and 230 elsewhere. Professor Marshall says that prisoners can go elsewhere.
I was not doing that.
I understand that.
That was not the intention of my questions. We have evidence from prison officers, from prisoners—critically—and from wives of prison officers at Peterhead who feel that they operate better at that prison. Prison officers and prison officers' wives are not victimised.
I do not accept that that would happen or has happened. To give an instance of that, no stigma is attached to the staff who operate in Letham hall, which is the one that I am used to. In fact, no stigma is attached to staff in any of the programmes. When the cognitive skills programme was introduced, people were unfamiliar with programmes and thought that the staff were pampering prisoners. It has become clear to most staff that programmes are important and that staff engagement in programmes and with prisoners benefits the whole establishment. I have not experienced stigma with regard to staff who operate the STOP programme or the STOP 2000 programme either in Shotts or in Barlinnie.
Although we are speaking about Barlinnie, the experience at Peterhead reflects on the placing of a sex offenders programme in a mainstream prison. When we visited Peterhead, I found from speaking to prisoners and prison officers that the programme works because the prison is dedicated to sex offenders. The atmosphere of the prison is one of dealing with sex offenders—there are no other prisoners apart from sex offenders so all the prisoners are in it together. Treatment takes place not only through the programme, but in every living and breathing minute that prisoners spend in the prison. The culture of the place is important. I do not want to diminish activities that take place elsewhere, but it seems that such programmes are better if they are done that way.
I accept that a culture has been built up and operates in Peterhead, although there is a need to evaluate it. That does not mean that such a culture cannot be built or operated elsewhere or that it cannot be transferred elsewhere. If the physical conditions were such that it was necessary to move the establishment—or there were other reasons for doing so—we would move the unit and manage the movement. We would try to ensure that the culture was replicated. When I visited Peterhead last year, I was impressed by what was happening there, but that does not mean that the same achievements cannot happen elsewhere or that they cannot be bettered elsewhere.
We are concerned that the expertise of officers in Peterhead might be lost if a transfer took place. You say that you are convinced that a transfer could be managed, but have you considered the loss of expertise? A percentage of the prison officers at Peterhead might decide that they do not want to move because they have settled there.
I suppose that if all the officers who are involved in the STOP 2000 programme won the lottery next week, they might choose to go elsewhere. In that case, we would have to rethink the matter. Staff from Barlinnie went to Peterhead to help set up the STOP 2000 programme. There are other staff in the service who are capable of delivering the STOP 2000 programme. The standards of the programme are monitored by psychologists and by an accredited group. I am not saying that a transfer would not be difficult or that Peterhead's achievements are not remarkable or that we should not try to protect Peterhead. I am saying that the SPS must consider how best to protect the programme if we decide that it will have to move.
The local community in Peterhead is perceived to be quite happy for the prison to be there. If the facility were moved to another part of the country, there might be difficulties. What is your experience from Shotts and Barlinnie of local populations that know that there are sex offenders in the local prison?
At Barlinnie, I have not canvassed the local population. It would be particularly difficult to do that. As I said on the previous occasion that I gave evidence, at Shotts, pressure groups were set up in the community because long-term prisoners were being held in the prison. As I remember it, there was no difficulty with having 117 vulnerable prisoners, of whom roughly 70 were sex offenders, or with the programme operating there. At that time, the prisoners complained that they were being moved to Peterhead. However, the facility has moved to Peterhead and the prisoners have settled there.
When you talk about the facilities that people have to endure, are you talking about physical facilities?
Yes. I started there as a young officer in 1971. When I went back last year, the physical conditions at the prison were just the same. However, the environment and the culture were by no means the same. In those respects, it was a different world.
I want to ask about officers' experiences of delivering programmes. At Peterhead, they think that they have something special that cannot be delivered elsewhere.
They do indeed have something special, but there are other officers who think that they have something special too—delivering the STOP programme in Barlinnie. Admittedly, at Barlinnie they deal with a smaller number of people. Of course, people at Peterhead have a right to think that they have something special, because they are doing good work up there. Whatever happens, it will be important to ensure that they are still engaged in the STOP programme.
Have any sex offenders at Barlinnie been assaulted, or have any of their visitors been intimidated?
The answer to both questions is no. I have no record of that happening.
I want to discuss whether sex offenders should be in a separate prison or in an isolated unit within a prison. I have visited Peterhead and I have visited Letham hall twice. I was left with the impression that sex offenders want to be treated just like any other prisoner. Many of them have been through the system and been subjected to physical, emotional and verbal abuse. We have to create the optimum environment for dealing with their offending behaviour.
I suppose it depends on what a prison within a prison is—in other words, on how the prison is segmented and run. The prison estate as a whole has to be reviewed with regard to the needs of many other types of prisoners. Not only sex offenders need protection from other prisoners. Vulnerable prisoners with personality disorders and high-dependency prisoners need protection too and cannot go into normal prisoner circulation.
Is there a certain number of accumulated visits? Do prisoners at Peterhead regularly come down to Barlinnie and Shotts to meet relatives and accumulate visits?
I would have to check that for Barlinnie. I have no knowledge of people coming down to Barlinnie. However, it could happen.
Is it not the case that, before release, a considerable number of prisoners from Peterhead come down to other prisons and are met by social workers?
Yes.
Is there a particular reason for social workers in the central belt being unable to go up to Peterhead to see the prisoners?
There is not. However, because the two long-term prisoners who are housed in Letham hall at the moment will be released into the neighbouring community, it is more convenient that they should be close to that community.
More convenient for whom?
For the prisoners. Because they are due for liberation, a range of agencies besides social workers—for example, housing and health bodies—may need to engage with them. That is the case with schedule 1 offenders in particular.
Am I right in thinking that Barlinnie is one of several prisons involved in that process?
Yes.
So a number of prisons are involved.
Yes. Edinburgh prison is also involved.
Does where a prisoner is housed before release depend to some extent on where the prisoner's family is and where he is likely to be reintegrated into the community?
That is correct.
As far as you can see, there is no problem with that arrangement at present.
No. If there are any problems, those have not come to my attention.
Can you provide us with information on the number of visits received by sex offenders at Barlinnie?
Are you referring to domestic visits or agency visits?
I am referring to domestic visits.
For all sex offenders?
If you have figures for different categories of prisoner, those would be quite useful to us. It has been suggested to us that sex offenders in Barlinnie are visited more often.
I can provide that information.
I do not want to set prison against prison. However, when we visited Peterhead prison, staff at the prison expressed concerns about the quality of the STOP programme that is delivered at Barlinnie. They said that staff at Barlinnie were not receiving education of a sufficiently high standard to enable them to run the programme.
The staff involved in the programme are certificated and have a psychologist manager who is part of the national team that oversees the programme. That person is called a treatment manager. There are standards set for the programme that must be adhered to. If they are not adhered to, accreditation will be removed.
How long has the programme been running at Barlinnie?
For two years.
How long has it been running at Peterhead?
The STOP 2000 programme has been running for two years. The STOP programme started at Barlinnie in 1998. I think that it started at Peterhead in 1995, although I am not sure about that.
I do not want us to explore the different kinds of STOP programmes, because if we do I will get into a muddle. I know that there are two different names for the programme. After the meeting I will read what has been said about it the Official Report.
The governor has already answered my questions on that subject.
Yesterday we discussed at length the revolving-door syndrome. It may be impossible for you to answer this question, but if you were the boss man, what would you do to end the revolving-door syndrome?
Along with other agencies in the judicial and social systems, I would continue to examine alternative ways of dealing with some of the problems that affect both individual prisoners and the society to which they are returning.
Is there not a revolving door on the way into Barlinnie?
Off the record, the answer to that question is that there is.
As members have no further questions to the governor, I thank him very much for his evidence.
Since 12 February, we have had three incidents at Low Moss, which resulted in some damage to property in three of the accommodation dormitories. The early indications that I have at present are that the incidents in each of the three dormitories were drug related.
I asked whether anyone had been harmed, either prisoners or prison officers.
No member of staff and no prisoner has been injured.
Have you any idea of the extent of the damage?
I do not yet have an estimate of the total damage. Since the first incident, which occurred in dormitory 14 on 12 February, a decision to proceed to repair has not been taken at this stage. I am not able to recall the estimate for repair on dormitory 14.
How many prisoners were involved in each of the three incidents?
Dormitory 14 contained 30 prisoners.
When was that incident?
It was on 12 February. There was also an incident seven or eight days ago, which involved 25 prisoners. Most recently, another 25 prisoners were involved in another incident.
Not the same prisoners?
Not the same prisoners and not the same dormitory.
Members may want to pick up on that point later.
I have not yet had the opportunity to go to Low Moss. As I understand it, the options seem to be either to build new residential accommodation, to rebuild the prison totally within the existing site or to close the prison and use the site for an entirely new prison. Could you lead me briefly through the pros and cons of those approaches?
The estates review offers the options that you indicated. We could build on the site, but that would present some difficulties. The estates review indicates that some land may be available at the bottom of the site, but we would be building while attempting to keep the place open, which would be extremely difficult. The estates review indicates that the maximum size of prison that that would offer the SPS is for 500 prisoners and not for the 700 optimum that has already been discussed by the committee.
Thank you. That is helpful. The staff are obviously concerned that the option of closing Low Moss altogether is on the table. Is the uncertainty the only problem with staff morale, or are there other issues relating to the conduct of the Scottish Prison Service or anything else?
Most of the staff understand that the estate as it stands is not fit for purpose. Some members of the committee have visited the site and will be aware of the construction of the billets and how they relate to the industrial complex, the dining hall and the other ancillary facilities. The staff are aware that, in the 21st century, the accommodation is not fit for purpose. My belief is that morale is not low in the sense that it is affecting staff performance, but there is a degree of uncertainty that will not be removed until decisions on the proposals in the estates review are made.
I understand that a feasibility study that was undertaken into the future redevelopment of Low Moss was published in April 2000. What did that study propose?
I am not aware of any feasibility study having been undertaken.
Was no study whatsoever undertaken?
I am not aware of one.
The evidence that we have received, such as that which the POAS provided last week—I do not know whether you have seen that—suggests that a proposal was made. There were two options: a £41 million option and a £42 million option.
I am not aware of that; I have seen no report to that effect.
I think that Mr Matheson is referring to "Constructing the Future: A Feasibility Study into the Future Redevelopment of Low Moss Prison", which is dated 21 April 2000, for governor Eric Murch. Are you not aware of that document?
No.
You have never seen it?
I have never seen it.
We must do something about that, because it is a feasibility study of your prison and it would be useful for you to see it.
When did you become governor of Low Moss?
In October of last year.
That was some time after the feasibility study was undertaken.
I do not have information on that to hand.
I am not asking you for information. I am asking whether you think that it would be possible or desirable to redevelop the site as a 700-place prison.
I do not have the technical skills to make a decision about the design of a prison on the land that is available for development at Low Moss.
What is the population of Low Moss?
This morning it was 266.
I want to ask you about drugs. You have had three drug-related incidents since February. Did you have incidents last year?
We had five incidents last year. I have commissioned research that will consider the incidents that I described today as well as all the incidents that occurred last year and establish whether any strands run through them, to allow us to manage them better.
Will there be any other inquiry into the incidents? How many incidents are we talking about?
Police inquiries will be carried out into the three incidents that I mentioned.
Were the incidents that occurred in 2001 of the magnitude of recent incidents?
No.
So we are not comparing like with like. Recent incidents are of a new dimension in Low Moss.
There have been destructions of accommodation in Low Moss before, but they did not occur with the frequency with which recent destructions have occurred.
What do you think is the reason for recent incidents? Are they to do with the prison estates review? I do not think that prisoners are very interested in that.
I doubt whether the incidents are to do with the estates review. The population, and society, is changing in relation to drugs. My guess is that the drug of opportunity has also changed.
Sorry?
I understand that it is now very difficult to get heroin on the streets and that the drug of opportunity is cocaine.
Why does that have an effect on riots, if I may use that word?
Crack cocaine has a different effect on users than does heroin.
So the drug that is used has changed.
Yes. Drugs also come in through visits and in other ways.
We know how drugs can be smuggled in through visits, but I found it astonishing that people could simply lob them over the wire. What routine do you follow in dealing with that situation?
Patrols go around the fence to look for drugs and to ensure that drugs are picked up. We also have cameras, and if drugs are spotted on camera, we go and get them.
What is your recovery rate? How many drugs do you pick up?
Fewer drugs come over the fence now; most of them come in through visits. I do not have figures to hand on how many drugs we pick up.
We understand that the test rate for drugs is high at Low Moss.
Yes.
I am giving you an opportunity to explain why that is the case. I have sympathy for the prison because of the way in which it is laid out—I am talking of the wire fencing. What is the impact of the dormitories on drug taking?
The fact that people share accommodation makes the situation more difficult to control. If someone wants to stop taking drugs but shares accommodation with other prisoners who do not want to stop taking drugs, he will find that decision much more difficult to make.
I am trying to remember whether Alba House is at Low Moss.
Yes, it is.
Does self-referral still exist for prisoners?
No, not at present. We are putting in a new throughcare centre, and a detoxification programme and a methadone programme are running at present. In addition, people from Cranstoun Drug Services Scotland come in to help with the throughcare of drug takers.
The chief inspector noted that the high level of prisoner violence appears to be reducing. Is that the case?
Yes.
Why?
We installed cameras in the dormitories, which is where most of the violence occurred. The monitoring of prisoner behaviour in the dormitories is now done by camera, which has certainly reduced the number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults.
Do all the dormitories have closed-circuit television?
Yes.
What about the corridors, which are narrow?
One of the difficulties with the Low Moss estate is that the corridors do not lend themselves to CCTV.
I am asking these questions for the benefit of those committee members who have not visited Low Moss. I seem to recall that the corridors are pretty narrow.
They are very narrow.
They provide great opportunities for intimidation, at the very least.
I am not saying that assaults have stopped. However, the number of assaults has greatly reduced and the initiation ceremonies that form part of the folklore of Low Moss have ceased.
What initiation ceremonies?
The initiation ceremonies were referred to in the estates review. Bullying took place in the dormitories and formed part of the initiation ceremonies for prisoners who came into the prison.
One often hears that CCTV simply displaces incidents. If a prisoner sees a camera, he might just go somewhere else. Do you think that that happens?
That is not our information.
How many prisoners are on the methadone programme?
I believe that, yesterday, there were 10 prisoners on the programme. However, I would need to confirm that figure.
That is quite a small percentage of the prison population.
Yes, but I stress that I would need to confirm that figure.
This may be a stupid question, but how many prisoners are drug free?
Are you asking about those who are on the methadone programme?
Yes. They would be in there as well, but is that it, or are there prisoners who are simply drug free, to your knowledge?
I am not sure that I understand your question, convener.
I am trying to get at the percentage of prisoners in Low Moss who are on drugs of one kind or another.
That is extremely difficult to estimate. A mandatory drug test—MDT—result showed that about 52 per cent of prisoners were negative.
When was that?
That is the most recent figure that I have. It is from last month.
When exactly?
The end of March.
Having discussed all the awful things that happen in prisons, perhaps we can now examine some of the initiatives that are designed to help prisoners at the pre-release stage of their sentence.
As I indicated, we are working as part of a national initiative, and people from Cranstoun Drug Services Scotland are assisting with the throughcare of people on drugs. Cranstoun is linking those people to the community for when they come out of prison. We run the new leaf project, which helps people develop writing and interview skills for job applications. We also run a cognitive skills programme, which helps prisoners develop interpersonal and relationship skills. In addition, we have education programmes. Last year, we bettered our education target by about 2,000 hours.
Do you fear that such initiatives might be lost if Low Moss prison closes? Do you think that they could be easily transferred to other prisons?
Those that I have described to you would be reasonably easy to transfer. They are being carried out in other establishments anyway. The advantage of the programmes going elsewhere is that they would probably move to sites that are better equipped to deal with them.
I think that it was intended to design the regime at Low Moss for the specific needs of prisoners. Has progress been made with that project?
Some progress has been made with that. We are designing a needs-and-risk assessment tool, which forms part of my business improvement plan for this year.
Do you think that that too would transfer to other prisons without any problem?
Yes.
I visited the education unit at Low Moss. The problem was that people were only in for a few months; then they came back in within a few months. That is known as the revolving-door syndrome, which we were discussing earlier.
That still applies.
The fact that many prisoners are not numerate or literate is a huge problem. Do you know the relevant figures for your prison?
I do not have those figures to hand. Most of the education resources are designed to deal with numeracy and literacy.
Have you managed to develop a system whereby prisoners could start an educational programme which, after being released and then sent back in, they could pick up again? In fact, prisoners were effectively on such a programme. I know that that is a dreadful way of looking at things, but that is the reality.
We have not designed a programme with that specifically in mind, but if a prisoner comes back in and uses the education facilities, he can pick up where he left off. We do not have a system that automatically provides for that, however.
Do you have waiting lists for courses?
No, we do not.
We were given evidence that there was a long waiting list for anger management courses, for example.
We do not do anger management at Low Moss.
We asked your colleague from Barlinnie for views on alternatives to custody. What are your views on the revolving-door syndrome, especially given that Low Moss houses prisoners on short sentences? Would you favour there being more alternatives to custody?
Most prison governors would favour alternatives to custody. Custody is really a large hammer. Society has no greater sanction than to send someone to prison. If we can develop alternatives that keep people in society, deal with their offending behaviour and protect the public, most if not all prison staff would be in favour of them.
Would alternatives to custody be most relevant for particular types of prisoner, such as for fine defaulters and those who receive very short sentences?
The protection of the public must come first. If we are not sending people into custody, we must be as sure as we can be that the public will be protected. It may well be that fine defaulters would fall into that category, but I do not feel that I am competent to give an opinion on that. I think that the matter is for the judicial process.
On the future building programme, can you give us advice on the best use of the Low Moss site? I appreciate that that may be difficult for you but, taking account of our previous discussion about the objective of getting away from the revolving door so that we stop repeat offending, do you think that one use of the site would be more helpful than another?
For Low Moss, the site is only relevant in the sense that, for most of the prisoners who are sent there, it is close to their families. Most of the prisoners come from the central belt, although the committee will be aware that Low Moss can also take prisoners from Greenock, Kilmarnock and the prisons on the east coast. I suggest that the site is relevant only in that it makes domestic visits easier.
From your experience of running a relatively small prison, do you have any views on the notional ideal figure of 700? Would a smaller prison be better at helping people not to reoffend?
My understanding is that that figure was arrived at by the members of the estates review team who had an opportunity to do an international study of the size of establishments. I bow to their superior knowledge.
Thank you very much. I take it that any committee member who wants to go and see Low Moss is welcome to do so. I understand that, due to the stinginess of the Parliament's funding, we cannot do that formally.
I would be delighted to see any members of the committee.
It would be useful to committee members to see the layout of the prison, so that we could all see the difficulties that are involved. I hope that some members will take up that invitation.
Next
Petition (PE494)