Prisons
We begin today with the ministerial statement on the prison estates review.
Scotland needs prisons fit for the 21st century. We consulted on proposals to achieve that goal, we have listened to what people said and we have considered the issues carefully. I now set out our plans to modernise Scotland's prison system.
Our approach combines investment in existing and new prisons. It builds on the existing roles of both the private sector and the public sector. This morning, I shall announce the largest ever investment programme in publicly run prisons, which will set us on the path to ending slopping out. That will be a significant achievement not only for the Executive but for the Parliament. Such an achievement is possible because we faced up to hard facts and hard choices during the estates review. It has not been a time for wishful thinking or political opportunism.
I shall also set out our response to rising prisoner numbers, especially the dramatic increase in remand numbers. I will set out our commitment to openness, accountability and excellence in all the work that is done by and in prisons and with prisoners. I believe that we have made the right choices, which will be welcomed by those who share our commitment to modernising public services and to correctional excellence. Prisons must help make Scotland a safer place by reducing reoffending.
I turn first to the alternatives to prison. Where public safety or the seriousness of the offence demands a prison sentence, the prison place must exist. However, sometimes people go to prison for the lack of a better alternative. We are committed to providing the right mix of custodial and non-custodial sentences for the courts to use. At the time of the estates review, we were already committed to those alternatives. We are in the process of extending the availability of drug treatment and testing orders. We have opened drugs courts in Glasgow and Fife. We have achieved national roll-out of restriction of liberty orders—or tagging orders—and there are early signs of an encouraging rate of take-up by the courts.
We will go further still. I am considering extending the use of supervised attendance orders, which I believe offer the scope to end the use of imprisonment for fine default. That further progress should reduce the projected prisoner population by 700 places, which is a prison's worth of alternatives to custody. I shall also look closely at other proposals to offer the courts a more flexible mix of custodial and non-custodial disposals.
Even the most enthusiastic advocates of alternatives to prison recognise that new prison places are required to reduce overcrowding and to end slopping out. Some of our prisons are more than 100 years old. Most were built for locking people up, not for helping them confront and change their offending behaviour, and some were not even built as prisons. In the decades before the creation of the Parliament, all those prisons were starved of investment. The estates review threw into sharp relief the fact that the public sector has not built a prison for about 20 years and has fallen behind modern standards for the efficient management of prisons. That must end.
As well as building on the role of the private sector, we will invest to secure reforms in our publicly run prisons. All our prisons—public, private, existing and new—must provide an excellent service. The public has a right to expect that and to see the evidence of whether it is happening. We believe that there is more to do to ensure openness, transparency and excellence in all the work that is done in Scotland's prisons and with offenders in the community by the Scottish Prison Service and partner organisations.
The evidence of reform is beginning to come through. The Prison Service has reached a partnership agreement with the unions, which will be signed later this year. The agreement commits them to working together to making the public sector more competitive. That is in line with our commitment not only to excellence in public services but to valuing the staff who provide them. We believe that public services should become more competitive, including by adopting modern flexible working practices. We also believe that those who provide services to the public should be good employers.
We want to see further reforms in the public sector: first, of the way in which performance is managed; secondly, of our existing prison buildings; and, thirdly, in order to provide the new places that we need. In each of those areas, the public sector can learn from, and work in partnership with, the private sector. That is a big challenge for the public sector, but I want to see the public sector rise to that challenge. Above all, I want the Scottish public to have the best services at the best value, whether those come from the public or private sector.
The first area that I mentioned concerns performance management. The chief inspector of prisons has drawn attention to the focus and clarity that has been brought by contract management for private prisons. He has called on the Prison Service to introduce similar measures in the public sector. I have instructed the SPS to bring forward proposals to achieve that. I expect that to result in published performance agreements for publicly run prisons and full reporting of performance against those targets. The Parliament has a key role in holding ministers and the Prison Service to account for the performance of our prisons. I see an important role for the justice committees in that aspect of our proposals. I look forward to discussing that when I meet them in joint session later this month.
Secondly, I want to see our existing prisons transformed. We have set the SPS the challenge of saving £12.5 million out of current expenditure, which it is succeeding in doing. Today, in advance of our announcement of the outcome of the spending review, I confirm that every penny of those savings will go into investment in publicly run prisons. Furthermore, I confirm that we will roll forward the SPS's existing capital investment programme for the next three years. We will top that up with new money in the spending review. The result will be a prison modernisation fund of more than £110 million for the next three years, which is a massive investment in publicly run prisons—more than ever before.
The modernisation fund will be used to back the implementation of development plans, which will start at Edinburgh, Perth, Polmont and Glenochil. Those plans draw on the best of modern prison design and set out to recreate that in our existing prison estate. I hope that we will be able to go on from there to all other publicly run prisons. As we proposed in the estates review, we will continue the work that is now under way at Barlinnie to create a fully modernised 530-place prison. We are investing the equivalent of the cost of a new prison in the publicly run estate. Taken together with other plans and work that is already in hand, that will create the equivalent in modern places of two new prisons spread across the publicly run estate.
Our investment in publicly run prisons will transform the existing prison estate, but we cannot create enough spaces in existing prisons to respond to the current levels of overcrowding and likely future growth. Prisoner numbers are at record levels and are set to go higher still over the next few years. Remand numbers in particular have seen a step change: the remand population is 28 per cent higher now than it was in the same period last year.
We have decided to respond to that growth with two new 700-place prisons, which will be on sites in central Scotland that the SPS will identify in consultation with local authorities and others. I emphasise that a number of sites are still under consideration and that no decisions have been taken.
After careful consideration, we have decided that the first of those prisons should be privately built and privately run. That route brings the new capacity on stream as quickly as possible to respond to the rapid rise in numbers. I have already said that the remand numbers show the biggest increase. To secure value for money, we will procure fully flexible prison places, but our intention is to use those places to respond to the current rapid rise in remand numbers.
In tendering for the prison, we will seek innovative proposals to provide care and opportunities for those on remand, including needs assessment and detoxification services. Innovative proposals may also feature an appropriate role for voluntary and charitable not-for-profit organisations. As part of our commitment to openness and accountability, we will publish the contract for that prison just as we have done for Kilmarnock.
The second new prison is my challenge to the public sector. I want the Scottish Prison Service and the trades unions to have the chance to show that they can bridge the gap between the private and the public sector on competitiveness. If they can produce for me a robust and credible plan for the second new prison—a plan that is competitive, offers value for money and delivers the places that we need on time—I am prepared to take that project forward in the public sector or as a privately built, publicly operated prison. However, I repeat that I will have to be satisfied that the proposals offer value for money to the taxpayer, that they are affordable, and that they will deliver.
I turn now to the question of how we protect our communities by managing sex offenders. The debate has focused on Peterhead, but the issue goes much wider. Peterhead houses some 300 sex offenders and as many again are in other prisons. We have already responded to the MacLean committee's report with the measures that are in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We are taking forward the recommendations of the Cosgrove committee. I am publishing today the report of an independent expert group of psychologists and psychiatrists, including specialists from Peterhead led by Alec Spencer of the Scottish Prison Service.
The focus of our efforts will now move on to proposals for comprehensive sex offender programmes across the prison estate, integrating existing work for long-term offenders with that for short-term prisoners and young offenders. We will welcome comments on the Spencer group's report before the end of the year. Thereafter, the SPS will hold discussions with partner agencies. Further proposals will be brought forward for the next session of Parliament.
We have listened to the consultation responses on Peterhead. We have heard how we might improve access to night sanitation, and we have heard from the families of offenders that some prefer to visit a prison where there are only sex offenders. We have always recognised the work of the staff at Peterhead as world class. We have always pledged that their work and the ethos that they have created will be protected. As our priority is to develop wider sex offender programmes, now is not the time to move the long-term programmes from Peterhead. Peterhead will therefore remain open and will continue to be the main centre for long-term sex offenders. The SPS will invest to improve the existing accommodation by installing electric power in cells. It is discussing the offer from the Prison Officers Association Scotland relating to prisoner access to night sanitation.
An important influence on our thinking has been the turnaround in the attitude of the local community—from initial, understandable, apprehension, to what is now committed support. I pay tribute to the dignified and effective campaign on behalf of Peterhead, in particular by the partners of the staff and by Aberdeenshire Council.
The decisions that we have reached combine alternatives to prison with investment in publicly run prisons and new prisons, in order to meet the rapid rise in prisoner numbers and to drive forward reforms in the public sector. Those measures meet the objectives that we set in the estates review. They show that we have listened. They are backed by our commitment to the principles of openness and democratic accountability that underpinned the creation of the Parliament. This programme of modernisation sets us on the path to ending slopping out, as the Parliament has long called on us to do. The measures are about more than buildings; they are a necessary further step in our work to modernise and reform the SPS and to sharpen its focus on correctional excellence. The measures have not been easy to shape, but I believe that they have benefited from the scrutiny that the Parliament is here to provide. In that spirit, I commend them to the Parliament.
We are now nearly three years into what has been one of the worst conducted parliamentary reviews I have ever seen. Three years of shambles is no credit to the minister or the Executive.
I welcome the proposals on Peterhead. However, they are a statement of the blindingly obvious. It has been blindingly obvious—to Scotland, if not to the Executive—right from the start that this would be the result. I congratulate my colleagues Stewart Stevenson and Alex Salmond for the work that they have done in representing the views of their constituents in the face of the threat laid down by the Executive. Closing Peterhead should never have been under consideration in the first place. It is a disgrace that the community in Peterhead has had to put up with that threat for three years.
I have three major questions for the minister on the rest of his statement. He talks about "modern flexible working practices". That theme ran through his whole statement. Will he clarify exactly what he means? Does he mean the dangerously low staffing levels at Kilmarnock that the chief inspector of prisons identified in his report yesterday? Does he mean worse employment conditions for those working in prisons? Does he mean lower wages for those working in prisons? Does he mean less training for those working in prisons?
I turn now to the proposal for two new prisons. The minister has proposed a privately built and privately run prison, despite virtually unanimous opposition—the only person whom we could identify as being in favour was a prisoner, I think in Shotts. Is the proposal not outright privatisation? Is that not what the minister is doing? If the minister is prepared to listen to Peterhead objectors, why was the virtually unanimous opposition to the rest of the review simply set to one side? If one group is to be listened to, why not the rest? Or is it a case of everyone being out of step except oor Jim? That is how it seems.
On the proposal for the second prison, it is stretching credulity to the extreme to accept that the SPS, as currently managed, and given its track record in terms of its attitude towards public versus private, will come forward with any proposal in which we can be confident. Will the minister confirm that his proposal means market testing? If it does not, it must be compulsory competitive tendering. Which is it? To the Scottish National Party, it looks suspiciously like one or the other.
I am grateful to Ms Cunningham for offering a welcome to the fact that Peterhead is not to close.
As her questions went on, we saw clearly how bereft the SNP is in addressing any of the serious issues facing our prisons. After all, only yesterday Mr Swinney was calling for longer sentencing for people who carry knives. That, of course, would lead to more people spending longer in prison. We heard nothing from the SNP on how it will deal with the increase in numbers.
In my statement, I said that we value the staff who work in our prisons. Of course I would not support dangerous employment practices, and of course I believe that training is vital in all parts of public service, not least in the prison service.
I make no bones about this: there is a challenge to the public sector—both to the SPS and to the trade union side—to come forward with proposals that will bridge the gap that has been identified by the evidence taken by the Justice 1 Committee. I have gone on record as saying that, all other things being equal, I would like to see the public sector, rather than the private sector, in the lead. However, ministers have an obligation to achieve value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we are offering the opportunity and the challenge. I hope that the challenge succeeds because I want it to succeed. I assure Roseanna Cunningham that this is a question neither of market testing nor of compulsory competitive tendering. It is a challenge to the SPS and the trade unions. As I have indicated, in the agreement between the SPS and the trade unions that is due to be signed later this year, there are clear indications of what they are doing to make progress. We want to encourage that trend. I have said it before and I will say it again: if value-for-money considerations can be satisfied, I would much rather go with the public sector than the private sector.
I welcome the minister's decision on Peterhead, which is a victory for common sense. The STOP: Closure of Peterhead Prison Officers Partners committee has written to say:
"It is our opinion that the Justice Committee has shown what the Scottish Parliament should be doing."
The letter continues:
"We commend your fairness, honesty, unbiasedness and determination to find out the truth, this truth being for the benefit of all residents of Scotland."
Would the minister like to be associated with that very generous tribute to the Justice 1 Committee? Will he say, in detail, how he intends to modernise Peterhead?
Does the minister acknowledge that the public must be protected from dangerous criminals and that there must be sufficient places in prisons to accommodate the disposals of the courts in the public interest, without overcrowding?
Finally, does he agree that there is undoubtedly a role for both the public and private sectors, each of which has a great deal to learn from the other, in a rolling programme of modernisation in the best interests of the Scottish public and the rule of law?
I am pleased that Lord James welcomes the announcements that I have made, particularly with regard to Peterhead. The way in which the consultation procedure progressed is a tribute to the Parliament and what many of us who fought to establish the Parliament said that it should do. There is no monopoly of wisdom in the Government. As I said on the day on which we launched the estates review, if we put out matters for consultation we will listen. As I said in my statement, one of the things to which I gave much weight—and I accept that in the past I made quite a bit of the distance to Peterhead and the difficulties that that caused for families in visiting—was the cogent and compelling evidence from families of prisoners at Peterhead that they found some benefit in getting out of their communities to visit a prison where there were only sex offenders. That was an important factor, as was the Spencer report, which was published today. I agree that that shows how a consultative mechanism can work properly.
I accept that there will be people for whom prison is entirely appropriate, either because they pose a threat to the community or because the seriousness and gravity of their offence is such that the community expects a custodial sentence to be imposed. Our obligation is to accept the people sent to prison by the courts. That is why we must address overcrowding. Addressing the problem is not a luxury and we cannot simply wish it away. We would like to see prisoner numbers reduced, but we are faced with increasing numbers, particularly in remand prisoners over the past year, and we must address that. That is why I have indicated that although the private prison to be procured will have to be fully flexible, our intention, as far ahead as I can see, is that the prison will cater for remand prisoners. That is why we want needs assessment and drugs detoxification facilities built into that prison.
As I made clear in my statement, there is a role for proper partnership between the public and private sectors in the provision of services. Above all, the public want good-quality services and value for money.
I am bound to welcome the £110 million investment in the public sector prisons and the modernisation of some of the draconian conditions that prisoners and staff have endured over too many years. Of course, there are many issues on which I would like further detail and discussion, not least the assurances on workers' terms and conditions, which I have raised over the past few months.
How speedily does the minister believe that he can eradicate the draconian practice of slopping out, which will assist prisoners and staff in doing their duties? How quickly after reducing overcrowding does the minister believe that we can move towards a service that is about correctional work and rehabilitation that will ultimately reduce the offending population?
I recognise the concerns about terms and conditions that Pauline McNeill has raised on many occasions. She will recall that the contract establishing Kilmarnock agreed a baseline for new staff. We might want to consider ways in which that could be taken forward in any future contract. We will give that further attention.
I welcome Pauline McNeill's welcome of the unprecedented investment in our current public estate. That is an important investment to ensure that we address questions of overcrowding and make progress in ending slopping out. The most likely time that slopping out can be ended—for several reasons, including the need to invest in the new estate and the arrangements for decanting and moving prisoners—is probably about a year after the completion of the second prison. The work that we are doing in investing in the public estate should allow us to make considerable strides towards ending slopping out sooner rather than later.
The final question was about alternatives to custody. I confirm that alternatives to custody—as have been debated in the Parliament—are very much part of our agenda. We want to ensure that alternatives to custody are of a quality that will persuade the judiciary and the public to have confidence in them. We want the judiciary to feel that they can impose non-custodial sentences with confidence. Pauline McNeill also said that we should act in order to let the Prison Service get on with addressing issues of correctional excellence. It is not a question of waiting to get on with delivering correctional excellence. That is already part of the vision and remit of the Prison Service. I hope that some of the things announced today, not least those aspects relating to performance monitoring—an issue that I will discuss with the justice committees convened by Pauline McNeill and Christine Grahame—will enhance the important task of the SPS in promoting correctional excellence, thus reducing the risk of re-offending by those who go through our prison system.
I welcome the minister's statement and the changes made since the prison estates review. They show that consultation with the general public and the views of the justice committee were taken seriously. The minister has moved a considerable way. I am among those people who would have liked him to move still further. However, he deserves credit for the improvements that he has made.
I have two questions. First, it is never quite clear from the media whether announcements such as today's or previous statements about prisons and justice are departmental announcements or announcements of Cabinet policy. Will the minister clarify that point? Secondly, will the minister give us an assurance on alternatives to custody and the prevention of re-offending? I know that the minister means well and tries hard—I do not mean to be patronising—but there are huge bureaucratic and legal obstacles. It is a very difficult task and many of the ways in which we do things must be changed. We must invest much more in creating communities that do not produce so many criminals. Will the minister give an assurance that he and the Cabinet will address the issues of alternatives to custody and preventing people from offending and re-offending?
I welcome the fact that Donald Gorrie welcomes the statement. Donald Gorrie referred to some media reports and I know that sometimes there are those who seek to drive wedges between members of the partnership Executive. I know that Donald Gorrie's concern is for unity. I assure him that the fact that the First Minister was in the chamber to hear my statement shows that it is a united view and represents the policy of the Administration.
Donald Gorrie, quite properly, continues to press the matter of alternatives to custody. The Executive has done far more than has ever been done in taking forward a range of proposals to promote alternatives to custody. Recently, there has been the all-Scotland roll-out of the tagging and restriction of liberty orders. We are considering how restriction of liberty orders can be applied in other circumstances. Proposals are currently before Parliament in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which also includes measures relating to supervised attendance orders. Drug treatment and testing orders are an important development—initial evaluations show that DTTOs have been a considerable success—but require a considerable amount of supporting infrastructure if they are to be rolled out. We plan to continue to roll them out in a further seven sheriff courts in the near future, and more beyond that.
I accept the importance of continuing to push that agenda forward. However, as I said, it is important to ensure that there is public and judicial confidence in such methods so that they are used. That is why we have changed the basis of criminal justice social work and have brigaded the criminal justice parts of social work departments into 11 mainland units, allowing them to achieve better uniformity and quality of practice. We also attach considerable importance to the community safety partnerships, which are a significant element in reducing offending in every community.
I reassure Donald Gorrie that there is a commitment on all those points. In criminal justice social work there has been a considerable additional financial commitment over recent years. That commitment indicates how seriously the Executive treats such issues.
Unusually, the list of members wanting to ask questions goes off the bottom of my screen. I appeal for short exchanges in order to allow more members to speak.
I want to raise two issues. The minister made great play of reducing the prison population by some 700, using alternatives to custody. Will the minister confirm whether that will be a reduction of 700 in the overall prison population or whether it will be nothing more than a reduction in an increasing prison population?
Could the minister also refer to the £110 million modernisation fund that he announced today? The minister will be aware that capital investment is already taking place in Edinburgh and Polmont and that plans have been submitted for Perth. Does the £110 million constitute any new capital investment? Is the money that is already being spent in those three prisons included in the £110 million that the minister announced?
Current investment at Barlinnie and in new house blocks at Polmont and Edinburgh is not included in the £110 million. On what is included in the £110 million, we had already indicated that the £12.5 million savings for years 1 and 2 were going to be applied for capital investment. I have been able to confirm that that will be carried through into year 3.
So it is not new money.
It is money that has not previously been committed to capital investment. New money will come in the spending review—about £15 million.
Is that extra money or is it already in the system?
That is included in the £110 million; it is new money.
We are rolling forward the £20 million capital investment that is currently in the baseline. That money had not previously been confirmed as being available. By any stretch of the imagination that is substantial investment. Over and above that, there is the current expenditure at Barlinnie, Polmont and Edinburgh, which is about £150 million in total.
The 700 equivalent places in non-custodial sentences will come off whatever the prison population would have been. I made the point that, much though I regret it, the projections are that the prison population will increase. For example, if we had done nothing to promote the alternatives to custody, the prison population would be, for the sake of argument, 7,400, but the fact that we are promoting the alternatives to custody makes it 6,700. That is the basis of that calculation.
I welcome the minister's statement and in particular the recognition of the need to modernise the prison estate. Will the minister agree to meet me, Premier Prison Services and East Ayrshire Council to explore the possibility of extending the current facility at Kilmarnock? Will he respond to the concerns that I have previously raised with him about the terms and conditions of employment of my many constituents who are employed at Kilmarnock?
I preface my answer by saying that I was careful to say that we are not making any announcements or decisions today about sites. However, I recognise—Margaret Jamieson has been arguing the case on the behalf of her constituents—that the option of doing something at the existing prison at Kilmarnock, whether by extending it or building another one nearby, has some attractions. I am certainly willing to meet Margaret Jamieson, East Ayrshire Council and the prison company to consider that option. I have to say that the option would have to offer good value for money and would not mean that the existing prison would come on to the Executive balance sheet. That is not just an accounting matter. It would wipe about £60 million off the money that is available for investment in publicly run prisons. We have not made any decisions yet. I am not ruling the option out and I am certainly prepared to meet Margaret Jamieson to discuss the issues that she has quite properly raised with me.
I welcome the statement on Peterhead as far as it goes. However, there is no commitment to new build there. The minister said that there is a saving of £12.5 million from current expenditure. Is it not the case that, over the past three years, £40 million to £50 million has been clawed back out of the SPS budget? If that money, together with the £12.5 million, had been applied three years ago to building new house blocks, the minister would not be in this position now. Does he agree that, if that money had not been clawed back, we could have had the new house blocks and that a considered position, reflecting the Justice 1 Committee's views, could have been taken about new build prisons in Scotland?
I suggest to Christine Grahame that she goes to Polmont and Edinburgh to see the new house blocks that are currently being built and will be completed within the next year.
The minister has talked about the partnership agreement with the unions in the prison service and there has been a lot of talk about flexible working conditions. Does he accept that he needs to ensure the modernisation of Scotland's prison management if he is to secure the modernisation of prison estates? What does he propose to do about that?
What I have said is clear. We want to take forward the chief inspector of prisons' recommendation that we examine ways in which to improve performance management. Let me reiterate the important points about that. I will instruct the SPS to bring forward proposals, including on published standards for the performance of publicly run prisons and full reporting of performance against the standards. We want to get on with that and I am instructing the SPS to start preparing that work. I can usefully discuss the matter with the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee when I meet them at a joint meeting later in the month. I believe that those committees, as well as ministers, could have an appropriate role, on behalf of the Parliament, in ensuring that the standards are being met and that there is proper accountability and transparency in the management and operation of our prisons.
Does the minister agree that the frank admission in his statement and in his answer to Mr Matheson that prison numbers will rise is indicative of the fact that existing alternatives to custody are not working and do not enjoy the confidence of the courts? Will he undertake a study to investigate why the alternatives to custody are not working and will he take any administrative measures that might be necessary to ensure that they do work, including perhaps taking their administration away from social work departments? Does he appreciate that, if he fails to do that, the pressures on the prison estates will become much greater in the years ahead?
I welcome what is implied Conservative party support for alternatives to custody. That is encouraging. However, I cannot accept the premise of Mr Aitken's question.
We suggested tagging.
I indicated that in the first four months of the roll-out across Scotland of electronic tagging orders—which Mr Gallie properly points out were introduced by the Conservative party; I am always prepared to give credit where it is due—there have been 129 orders. That is an encouraging sign in a relatively short period.
The evaluations of drug treatment and testing orders are also very encouraging. However, I do not underestimate the intensity of the scheme—part of the purpose of drug treatment and testing orders is that they involve an intense sentence. A range of agencies is involved in trying to give proper support and in trying to break the cycle of drug abuse and dependency. The initial evaluations indicate that the orders are succeeding.
The number of receptions in prison for fine default has gone down considerably. Dr Simpson has reminded me that it is at its lowest for 10 years. In a range of ways, alternatives to custody are working. I am not prepared to interfere with the independence of the judiciary—that is an important principle and I do not think for one moment that Bill Aitken would suggest that I should do so.
Taking together what we are already doing, such as making changes in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill with regard to supervised attendance orders and making additional resources available to criminal justice social work, I think that we should see alternatives to custody having an impact on the number of prisoners.
I congratulate the minister on his statement. He has demonstrated a genuine willingness to listen and respond to consultation. As he said, the situation is not only a challenge to the public sector; I believe that it is a huge opportunity. With that in mind, what time scale does the public sector have for producing proposals for the building of the second prison? What is the likely time scale for building the first private prison for remand prisoners?
Having made the announcement today, I believe that it is only fair that the SPS management and the trade union side have a proper opportunity to work up proposals. I am not imposing a deadline now. That would be premature. Given the numbers involved, we are not going to hang around, but I could not put a timetable on things today.
I announced the procurement of a privately built, privately operated prison which, as I said, will be used for remand purposes. We want to proceed with that as quickly as possible, but no decisions have been made about the site, which is an important consideration. Mr Lyon will recognise that we have no control over issues such as planning permission.
Does the minister agree that his statement was nothing more than a testimony of failure? There has been a failure to reduce prisoner numbers generally and a failure to reduce the number of women prisoners. Moreover, the minister has failed to convince anyone of his opinion that Peterhead prison should close. Is not his announcement a complete abdication to the failed Tory privatisation ideology that the state should convict and send citizens to prison, but that the private sector should make profit from imprisoning those citizens? Is not it a disgrace that the Executive now promotes a failed Tory privatisation ideology for the criminal justice system? Is the minister ashamed of that failure?
No, no, no, no. It is self-evident that I do not agree with Mr Sheridan. Given how often he talks about the public sector, I am disappointed that he failed to welcome the biggest ever investment in public sector prisons. That speaks for itself.
Tommy Sheridan is well aware of the work that is in progress to establish a time-out centre in Glasgow.
The minister has failed.
The time-out centre is not a failure. It is an innovative approach to dealing with the serious issue of women offenders. The complex issue of trying to treat young women, many of whom have chaotic, drug-dependent lifestyles, does not lend itself to the cheap comments of Tommy Sheridan. We are trying to take a serious issue seriously. The measures that we have put in place show our determination to reduce the population at Cornton Vale and to bring order and stability to the lives of people who, rather than being maliciously criminal, have simply found themselves in wretched circumstances.
I thank members of every political persuasion for articulating the case for Peterhead. I am sure that that was an important part of the minister's decision-making process. On members' behalf, I thank the Peterhead prison officers' partners for their dignity and for the way in which they conducted themselves during their campaign. Does the minister agree that their campaign shows that politics is relevant and that people can get involved in the political process? I hope that that relevance will be reflected in a high turnout at next year's election.
I thank the minister for the reprieve of Peterhead, but his announcement of investment from the new fund for building in the central belt—welcome as it is—does not entirely remove the uncertainty over a prison and staff that Clive Fairweather yesterday described as a role model for the Prison Service. Will the minister accept the suggestion of the Spencer report—as I understand it—that the 450-place prison that is required for long-term sex offenders should be built at Peterhead?
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his welcome of the decision on Peterhead. I repeat what I said about the dignified and effective role of the partners of the Peterhead staff. On the occasions that I met them, they put their case forcefully but fairly, and not without humour at times. That effective campaign shows the importance of ordinary people becoming involved in the political process. When the Parliament was set up, we hoped that that would happen.
I said that Peterhead will remain open and will be the centre for the treatment of long-term sex offenders in Scotland. The Spencer report raises a number of issues, on which I will obviously want to reflect. I look forward to the response of Stewart Stevenson and others to the report. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of my considerations.
I invite the Deputy First Minister to focus on what I think is the central issue to emerge from the prison estates review, which is the efficiency and humanity of the publicly run estate in Scotland. As a comparison, I draw the minister's attention to the Accounts Commission report on the education sector that came out earlier this summer, before the publication of the prison estates review. In the education and health sectors, the publicly funded alternatives are now often only at a slight cost disadvantage when compared to the private sector alternatives. However, the prison estates review contains the revelation that the privately funded alternatives are hundreds of millions of pounds cheaper than the publicly funded options. For all those who care about public services, is not the issue why an agency of the Executive runs inefficient services throughout its estate in relation to security, staffing and operational considerations? Those issues were clear to us 10 years ago, when the Kilmarnock experiment was first mooted.
Given those circumstances, what confidence can Mr Wallace or the Parliament have in the management structure of the Prison Service to deliver either value for money for the public purse or humane conditions for prisoners? The present system is not only vastly more expensive than the private option, but fails to monitor the literacy levels or throughcare experience of those in its care. For all those who care about public services, that is the central issue that emerges from the review.
I take the points that Wendy Alexander makes. It is important that we achieve value for money in the public sector and that the services are delivered properly and humanely. That is the challenge that has been set down with the procurement of the second prison.
Clive Fairweather's inspection report on Kilmarnock in March 2000 states:
"The benefits of clear direction and a specified level of performance were apparent. Staff at all levels understood their role and their contribution to the successful operation of the prison. The standards set for Kilmarnock are higher in many cases than elsewhere in the SPS".
Clive Fairweather went on to recommend
"that the SPS considers how the performance management of its other prisons can be improved in light of the experience at HMP Kilmarnock."
He particularly mentioned the clarity and focus at Kilmarnock, which he had not encountered in other parts of the estate. The SPS management are aware of those comments. I made the announcement about future performance management changes on the back of those comments.
I pay tribute to the Peterhead campaign, the Peterhead community and the support of Stewart Stevenson and Alex Salmond.
One reason for the increase in prisoner numbers is society's failure to reduce reoffending. I direct the minister's attention to Craiginches prison in Aberdeen. In that prison, 85 per cent of prisoners are drug users. The area has some of the highest rates of drug-related crime in Scotland, but there is a pathetically low level of drug rehabilitation services in the prison. Craiginches did not merit a mention in the minister's statement, despite the fact that it faces some of the biggest challenges in the prison estate. Will the minister consider the drug rehabilitation services in Craiginches? Will he say what investment he intends to give to Craiginches to begin to reduce reoffending?
I accept much of Richard Lochhead's analysis that drug misuse is a considerable driver of rising prison numbers. That experience is shared in countries other than Scotland. That is why we must tackle drug misuse through a range of policies, not just through penal policy. The emphasis must be on rehabilitation and education as well as on enforcement. Anyone of a fair-minded disposition would acknowledge that the Executive has introduced a raft of policies to deal with drug misuse.
On dealing with drugs in prisons, given the number of receptions in prisons of people against whom there is recent evidence of drug abuse and the number of abusers who are revealed through random drug tests, we can see that a lot of good work is done in prisons to get people off drugs. However, I am not complacent and know that more can be done. The Cranstoun initiative in throughcare has been an important recent development. As I said, we also see the provision of detoxification facilities as playing an important part in the procurement of the proposed new prison, not least because of the problem of drug misuse among people who are remanded in custody. I accept the importance of addressing drug misuse as part of a general approach to penal policy.
I welcome the minister's statement, which has at its heart the long-overdue modernisation of our prison estate. However, the minister referred to a 28 per cent increase in the number of remand prisoners over the past 12 months. Will he tell us how the proposed new remand facility will impact on the rest of the prison estate and how it will free up valuable, experienced prison staff to undertake a more rehabilitative role? That is essential if we are radically to reduce the current reoffending rate.
Scott Barrie is right to highlight the figure that I mentioned. The profile of the prison population shows that the number of short-term prisoners has remained relatively stable. There has been an increase in the number of long-term prisoners, but that is not unrelated to an increase in serious drug offences and the fact that the police are achieving record levels of detection, which means that more criminals are being caught. Nonetheless, the 28 per cent increase in the number of remand prisoners is staggering and we are trying to reach some analysis and understanding of why it has occurred.
When people are placed on remand in our existing prisons, they are often there for a short period and there is a churning effect that puts a considerable strain on prison staff. As we intend to use the proposed new prison for remand prisoners, it will be geared towards dealing with that problem. I have also mentioned the detoxification facilities, as many remand prisoners are received while they are suffering from the effects of drug abuse. Such facilities will be important for the remand prisoners who will use the new prison and for those in existing prisons where staff will have less pressure on them and will therefore be able to devote more time to rehabilitation work.
In view of the minister's comments on remand prisoners, will he tell us what proportion of remand prisoners are in prison for offences that they have committed when they have been released early from prison sentences that have been set previously by courts? In the light of Pauline McNeill's comments on corrective and rehabilitative procedures in prisons, does the minister agree that short sentences do not allow for those procedures? Will he reconsider the legislative process with a view to making sentences mean what they say and ensuring that there is time to work with prisoners in prisons?
In an experiment in England, courts had to sentence either under or over a certain length of time, so that sentences were not of a medium length, which Phil Gallie thinks ineffective. As a result, magistrates tended to sentence over that length of time, which led to an increase in the prison population. Phil Gallie's point underlines the importance of having a range of sentences, both custodial and non-custodial.
I cannot answer the question on the proportion of the increase that is made up of prisoners who are released early and have reoffended. As I said in my response to Scott Barrie, we do not have a breakdown of the drivers behind the increase. We are trying to get work done on that, as having an understanding of the increase might allow us to make other decisions. This is purely anecdotal, but the increase may be a result of people reoffending while they are on bail. The number of people on bail is increasing, as is the number of people on remand, but the two figures do not always square. There is a possibility—it is no more than that—that people who have offended on bail are being remanded while they await their trial.
The minister has gone some way towards answering the main points of my question about the provision of information to the Parliament on the performance of our prisons. However, I would like him to expand on that a little. Will that information be of the quality that is required to enable the Parliament to provide the scrutiny that he seeks? Will it be made public, so that we can get feedback from the public sector and from members of the public? Will he also confirm that the information will include details of the rehabilitation programmes that are taking place and the impact that they are making?
As I said, I hope that, by the time I meet the justice committees, I can flesh that out in more detail. Some of the points that Rhoda Grant has highlighted, concerning openness and transparency, are important and would influence us in the direction of making the information public. Rehabilitation is a vital part of the Prison Service's work, and it would be odd if we monitored performance but did not make available information on that key function and objective.
I, too, welcome the statement and the demonstration of the fact that, when people choose to engage in the political process, they can make a difference. I pay particular tribute to those who made the case for the retention of Peterhead prison: Aberdeenshire Council, for its thorough and detailed report; the prison officers' partners; the local community; and the local elected representatives.
First, will the minister give us an indication of his time scale for decisions and long-term planning for developments at Peterhead? Secondly, Wendy Alexander asked a pertinent question about value for money on the personnel side. On the fixed-asset side, is public build apparently so much more expensive than private build because contractors submit tenders at a premium price for public works? Would it be possible to investigate a fixed-price publicly built prison?
As I said in my answer to Stewart Stevenson, the response to the Spencer report will play an important part in our thinking. Although I could not put a time scale on it, Peterhead is to remain open. We cannot commit for ever and a day but, as far as I can see, Peterhead will remain the centre for treating long-term sex offenders.
On Nora Radcliffe's second question, and at the risk of incurring the Presiding Officer's displeasure, I note that there is a certain public works contract for which he has some responsibility and which shows the difficulties of managing public contracts.
That is unfair.
Euan Robson says that that is unfair. However, even in France one of the major public buildings—I think that it is the national library—is experiencing some difficulties. Nora Radcliffe raises an interesting point about the possibility of a fixed-price public build contract. I shall reflect on that and decide whether any advantages could flow from it.
I welcome the fact that the Parliament and the Executive are addressing a problem that has been neglected for decades. Does the minister acknowledge the importance of having a vigilant and independent chief inspector of prisons at this time of major change? Will he pay tribute to the excellent qualities that Clive Fairweather has brought to that task? The whole Parliament will expect his successor, Andrew McLellan, to bring the same qualities to that important job.
I welcome the opportunity to say in Parliament what I said in the foreword to the chief inspector's report, which was published yesterday. I salute the work that Clive Fairweather has done in his years as Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. He has been robust, but he has been fair—he has given credit where it has been due, but he has not held back in criticising when he has felt that criticism has been due. Those are the qualities that make a good chief inspector of prisons. Anyone who followed the work of Andrew McLellan when, as the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he visited every Scottish prison will know of his commitment to excellence in the prison service. Ministers will not expect an easy ride from Andrew McLellan.
After that comment, the words "forked tongue" come to mind.
I draw the minister's attention to the real state of Kilmarnock prison. Far from being a model of excellence, it is an absolute shambles, as illustrated by an article in today's Daily Record, in which a warder who has left the prison confirms what I have been saying for months. Does the minister realise that drugs and weapons are rife in Kilmarnock, that employee morale is cripplingly low, that the warder who left the prison was left in charge of 92 prisoners, that the pay and conditions arrangements mean that, in February, he was paid just 56p above the minimum wage and that, when he was under attack, it took five minutes before another warder was on site? As he says,
"Prisoners are treated like kings while the prison officers are treated like slaves."
Will the minister lift the scales from his eyes, conduct an independent investigation into the running of Kilmarnock and recognise that, if this shambles is the best example of privatisation in the prison service, it should not be repeated?
It is fair to say that figures for serious assaults are the best comparative indicator, as they are classified on the same basis across the prison estate. In the year to 31 March 2002, the number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults in Kilmarnock was lower than in Edinburgh and the same as in Aberdeen, Barlinnie and Glenochil. Over the same period, there were two serious prisoner-on-staff assaults in Kilmarnock compared with one each in Edinburgh, Barlinnie, Glenochil and Perth. Although any assaults are a matter for concern, those figures do not bear out the claim that Kilmarnock is a particularly violent prison.
It is also worth noting that, in the most recent survey of prisoners, the percentage of prisoners in Kilmarnock who expressed concerns about safety was similar to that in Aberdeen, Glenochil, Perth and Shotts and was significantly lower than that in Edinburgh.
On the ratio of warders to prisoners in their care, I point out that, earlier this week, some people associated with the SNP benches drew attention to the Coleman prison in Florida, wherein, as we found on investigation, one prison officer supervises between 256 and 340 prisoners at any time. That is not the sort of example that we should be following.
Although I am pleased that the minister has announced an increase in funding for the modernisation of the public prison estate, what guarantee can he give us that the vast majority of offenders who are given custodial sentences will serve their sentences within the public Prison Service?
Many prisoners who serve long sentences will serve time in more than one prison. There is a likelihood or a possibility of a prisoner serving part of their sentence in the public sector. It is still the case, following my announcement, that the majority of prisoners will be held in the public sector.
I welcome the retention of Peterhead prison, as that recognises the unique and vital work that is carried out there to prevent serious sex offenders from reoffending. However, I would like to know whether Peterhead will be forced once more to conduct a campaign to stay open in five years' time. As the sex offenders unit is about people rather than buildings, can the minister assure us that Peterhead will continue to carry out its vital work in the long term rather than just in the short term?
I have indicated that, as far ahead as I can see, Peterhead will continue to be the centre for the treatment of long-term sex offenders. I am aware of Gil Paterson's serious interest in the issue of tackling sex offending. I am sure that he will find the Spencer report informative. The report has a number of conclusions and, based on them, we believe that there should be a focus on the shorter-term sex offenders. In those circumstances, we did not think it right to move prisoners from the longer-term prison.
It is important to remind people that treatment of sex offenders also takes place in prisons other than Peterhead. I do not want anything that has been said today or anything associated with the fact that Peterhead will stay open to detract from the valuable work that other Scottish prisons do in dealing with sex offenders.
I agree with the minister that, if we are to meet the central challenge of slowing down the rise in prisoner numbers, much of which is due to drug misuse, we have to develop alternatives to custody and introduce innovative ways of breaking the cycle of reoffending.
Does the minister agree that, if we are to roll out the drug treatment and testing order and drugs court pilot schemes, we must increase the number of places on day and residential programmes for drug addicts? If we are to break the cycle of reoffending, it is important that we go beyond the provision of detox facilities to much more effective drug treatment in prisons, as we are beginning to do through Cranstoun Drug Services. It is also important that we improve rehabilitation and throughcare, which has hardly been mentioned today.
Will the minister consider holding a pilot scheme for halfway houses, which Richard Simpson, Sylvia Jackson and I have long advocated and which could play a central role in the provision of alternatives to custody and helping to break the cycle of reoffending?
I said in my statement that I am prepared to consider innovative alternatives to custody. As Keith Raffan indicated in his question, it is not possible simply to turn the tap on and immediately have a system of DTTOs across the country. If the orders are to work and to command the public and judicial confidence that we want them to, it is important that they are implemented properly. We are intent on ensuring that that happens. However, there are a number of other initiatives that merit consideration and today is not the last word in the development of alternatives to custody.
Three members still wish to ask questions. If the minister is agreeable, I propose to take all their questions at once in order to protect the next debate. I encourage Cathy Peattie, David Davidson and John McAllion to ask their questions as quickly as possible.
How will today's announcement deal with overcrowding in the women's prison at Cornton Vale?
What we have had today is a postponement of a final decision on Peterhead. Will the minister give us a date when a decision will be made on the long-term programme for the building?
If the minister accepts that only the state can deprive people of their liberty, does he agree that it follows that only the state can own and manage the prisons in which people are held? If so, does he agree that the proposal to build and run a prison for profit is not only offensive but runs counter to all the principles that, until these recent right-wing times, underpinned penal policy in this country? He talks about value for money, but what does the fact that we have allowed a few powerful and privileged people to profit from the imprisonment of their fellow citizens tell us about the values of this society?
With regard to Cornton Vale, what I have said today about the development of alternatives to custody is important. People will have seen the letter in The Herald that commended the Executive for some of the initiatives that we have taken in that regard. Obviously, the time-out facility will be an important development in relation to reducing the prisoner numbers in Cornton Vale.
I totally refute what David Davidson said. Peterhead will remain open and I do not think that I can be more unequivocal than that.
I respect the view that John McAllion expresses but it is important to remember that ministers remain responsible for the welfare of every prisoner who is given a custodial sentence by the courts, be they in the public or private sector. I take that responsibility seriously and I believe that the proposals that I have announced today will allow us to discharge that responsibility more effectively.