Prison Officers' Club (HMP Polmont)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3419, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the closure of the prison officers' social club at HM Prison Polmont. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I invite members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the decision by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to close the officers' social club at HM Prison Polmont and considers that SPS should withdraw this decision and honour its commitment to allow the club to purchase the property, recognising the important role of the club to both staff and the local community.
I thank Fiona Hyslop for securing the time for this debate. It is a pressing issue and I was keen to have a debate on it as early as possible. I lodged the motion only two weeks ago, and I am grateful for having been able to secure time for the debate so quickly. I welcome the members of the social club who are in the public gallery. They have been campaigning for months to stop the closure of their local social club.
I am sure that most members have some form of social club in their constituency. Often social clubs are closely linked to companies or industries in local communities. They are often left behind when industries move on or cease to be located in Scotland. Clubs find themselves struggling to cope—struggling for members, struggling financially and struggling because of the poor state of their establishment.
The story of the Polmont prison officers' club is very different. It is not a story of a struggling club. Opened in 1957, the club is well established in the local community and is well used. In its 44 years, it has been seen as a key part of the community in Polmont. It has 350 members. They include people who currently work in the Scottish Prison Service, retired prison officers, officers' families and friends, and members of the wider local community. The club is well supported, so why close it?
I am sure that many members present at today's debate will be aware that the Scottish Prison Service tends to work in mysterious ways. Back in 1998, the club indicated to the Scottish Prison Service that it would like to purchase the property and raised the matter with the SPS directly. Naturally, the club was delighted when on 21 August 1998 it received a letter from the governor of Polmont prison, Dan Gunn, who indicated that at a recent meeting the prison board had decided that the club committee should be offered the opportunity to purchase the club premises. The governor invited the club to indicate whether it was interested in doing that.
In the past two years, because of the governor's offer, the club has invested some £45,000 in upgrading the building to ensure that its standards are adequate. I am sure that members will recognise that, after such investment, this is a very good club. The chamber can imagine the shock and dismay that club members felt when, in August this year, they found out that the Scottish Prison Service had decided not to renew the club's lease on 4 January 2003. That decision came out of the blue. It was not preceded by any consultation and is a complete U-turn from the commitment that was made in August 1998.
Members may ask why the Scottish Prison Service decided to make such a U-turn. In its corporate plan for 1999 to 2002, the service stated that one of its key objectives was to move the Scottish Prison Service college to premises that were better designed and serviced to meet the service's needs. The SPS has now decided to knock down the social club, which is beside the college, to landscape the site for two years and to save up a little capital, which will allow it to build new facilities on the college campus.
Some may say that it is important for the SPS to have adequate facilities for training staff. However, I understand that the real reason for the decision is to allow the SPS to enhance the college to use it for corporate functions.
In August, the officers' club raised concerns about the proposal not to renew its lease with the SPS. On 4 October, it received a letter from the SPS confirming that it would not renew the lease on 4 January. However, in its generosity the service has agreed that the club may purchase a piece of land for a new officers' club. A piece of land of around an acre will cost the club about £100,000. That figure does not include the capital costs of building a new club. However, because the SPS recognises that capital costs may be involved, it has offered to allow the club to purchase some properties in Newlands Road. The cost of those properties would be £200,000.
I am sure that members will recognise that purchasing either land or the properties that have been offered is well outwith the financial scope of the club. I believe that the SPS letter is nothing more than an excuse to allow the SPS to say that it is trying to work with the club. In reality, the letter offers the club nothing.
Members will be aware from my comments that the club is well used by the local community. I will illustrate how well used the club is. Between now and the end of March 2003, the club has bookings for functions on every Friday and Saturday night. For the new financial year from April 2003, the club already has 27 bookings for various functions and events. The club is extensively used by a wide range of organisations within the local community and for family functions and parties.
I will give members only a taste of the groups that use the club, but I could mention many. One group is the Braveheart project, a voluntary mentoring group that was recently established in the local area to work with people with heart problems. The project is being piloted and monitored by the Health Education Board for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the British Heart Foundation.
The Braveheart project chose to use the prison officers' club because it is much cheaper than using any community facility within the local area. The club provides an important resource for an important and worthy project.
The club has had a letter from Squadron Leader Murray of the Air Cadets, who states:
"I am sorry to hear of the impending closure of the Polmont Officers Club. Over the years members of the Air Training Corps have used the club for a variety of functions … The main reason the Officers Club was used was the friendly, safe environment. The Officers Club serves all members of the community."
There is also correspondence from the local football club, which uses the club extensively and demands that it remain open. Clearly, the club is an important resource in the local community.
I have a document called "A New Vision For A New Service", which was printed from the Scottish Prison Service website. The document states under the heading of "Respect for our Staff":
"The Scottish Prison Service is proud of our people. We recognise that our staff work in difficult circumstances and are dedicated and skilled. But our image is not good and often that is a self-inflicted wound. We all have a responsibility to make sure that the work we do is recognised, in the wider community."
Clive Fairweather stated at the Justice 1 Committee recently that there was a need to build relations between SPS staff and senior management. How does the SPS's treatment of the officers' club fit in with the SPS's new vision? I hope that the minister will recognise that the Scottish Prison Service has not given due credit to the important resource that the prison officers' social club is for the Polmont area. I hope that the minister will intervene personally to ensure that the SPS honours its commitment of August 1998 to allow the club to purchase the property. [Applause.]
Order.
I ask for four-minute speeches, please.
Polmont is part of my constituency of Falkirk East, and I thank Michael Matheson for lodging the motion. We have worked together with the social club representatives since closure of the club was announced without warning, consultation or negotiation. No hint had been given of the club's fate. Just a few days before the announcement, the club spent £2,000 on new equipment. As that expenditure suggests, in the 45th year of the club's existence, club finances are healthy because the club fulfils a need.
Prison officers, their families and friends need somewhere where they can socialise, free from the aggressive encounters that they risk elsewhere. However, the club offers more than that: it is also a resource for the local community and a good place to hold birthday parties, weddings and other functions. The club is frequently used by local groups and charities and is the focus for voluntary activity by prison officers. The club also employs eight people.
Retired officers have written to me and to Michael Matheson. They make comments such as:
"The club allows me to keep in regular contact with the friends I have made."
Retired officer Walter Henderson, who attended the opening of the club in 1957, writes:
"The proposals could prove to be a Public Relations disaster returning to the attitude of them-and-us which existed before the Club."
Being part of the community has helped the club avoid the nimbyism that could have existed.
Other letters refer to the impact on staff morale, which is already at an all-time low. Last year, the club was refurbished, but now that refurbishment appears to have been a waste of money and effort.
This is not the first time that prison officers have sought my help. A steady flow of people have attended my surgeries, and other MSPs report that they have also dealt with prison officers. The circumstances surrounding this closure are symptomatic of a wider malaise. I am frequently told of instances of the SPS adopting bullying and dictatorial management styles. I know that the SPS can be slow, obstructive and secretive when it responds to inquiries. Until today, when I received hurried faxes to my Parliament and constituency offices, there had been no replies to my letters on the matter.
If the SPS management refuses to change its ways, perhaps it is time for the Scottish Executive to change the SPS management.
I doubt whether intimidation and disregard for staff can be addressed unless there is a new broom to sweep away the cobwebs of industrial relations rooted in a previous century—and I am not referring to the 20th century.
There are parallels with the situation that arose in relation to the Scottish Qualifications Authority. As they did with the SQA, ministers must address the continuing problems in the SPS. In the first instance, I would like to hear the minister say that he will support my prison officers and use his influence to ensure that the SPS either reprieves the club premises or, at the very least, offers the club a realistic offer of relocation and ensures that it can continue to provide a valuable service to the officers, their families and the community.
I congratulate Michael Matheson on securing this debate on an important matter affecting people employed in Polmont young offenders institution and other people in the local community.
I have had correspondence on the issue from constituents who are employed in Polmont and I took the matter up with Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the SPS, who replied today. I find the attitude of the SPS unsatisfactory. For a start, there seems to have been no meaningful consultation between the SPS and the trustees of the club before the closure decision was made. On the contrary, there seems to have been considerable secrecy surrounding the original decision and a deliberate attempt not to reveal the closure decision until one month before the date of the closure.
It appears that the SPS has the legal right to terminate the lease with only one month's notice, but that is a deplorable way for any employer to treat employees.
Mr Cameron tells me in his letter that the SPS is now willing to extend the lease until the end of June next year to allow the club to honour commitments made to various groups and organisations. I therefore appeal to the SPS to use the next nine months to consult the trustees of the club in order to explore all possible alternatives to closure.
I understand that the reason for the closure is to demolish the premises in order to develop the SPS college, which is next door. However, some of the club members have suggested alternatives that would allow the college's development to go ahead without the club being demolished.
Even if the SPS is hellbent on demolishing the club premises, it has also been suggested that the SPS could and should provide an alternative plot of land nearby to build another social club. I was amazed at the price of £100,000 that Michael Matheson mentioned, but am aware that the cost of alternative premises could be as high as £200,000.
In his letter, Mr Cameron says that it would not be proper for the SPS to provide funds for the purpose of finding alternative land for the club. If the SPS is unwilling to provide funds, surely it could give the club the lease of a nearby plot of land. Last year, the club spent £30,000 upgrading its facilities. That money would not have been spent if the SPS had at that time given any hint of closure.
The SPS may not have any legal obligation to do otherwise, but it certainly has a moral obligation to stop treating its own employees with absolute contempt. To be a prison officer is a very stressful job, and the club gives prison officers the opportunity to unwind and relax after a hard day's work. Some members of the local community also use the facilities, and some social events in the club have helped to raise funds for numerous good causes such as the Strathcarron hospice and the children's ward at Falkirk and District royal infirmary.
It would be a great pity if all that were to cease due to the Scottish Prison Service's high-handed attitude. I therefore appeal to the Deputy Minister for Justice to tell Tony Cameron to think again and enter into meaningful negotiations with the club to ensure its continuation.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject and congratulate Michael Matheson on the persuasive way in which he advanced the case. Cathy Peattie's and Dennis Canavan's points were very well made. Cathy Peattie's letters most certainly should have been answered.
The officers' social club provides an essential service to prison officers and the local community. I am concerned to hear that the Scottish Prison Service wishes to demolish that excellent facility and replace it with a road. Not surprisingly, the members of the club find that highly objectionable—all the more so because the club committee was under the impression that it could buy the building from the SPS and run it independently.
Furthermore, the suggestion from the SPS that the club could buy land near the present site for new premises at the overall cost of some £300,000 to £400,000 is totally inappropriate because there is simply no way that the club could afford that scale of expenditure.
It is astonishing that the SPS apparently failed to consult the club committee about the plans, given their immense importance to those involved. Instead, the SPS presented its plans as a fait accompli. I hope indeed that the SPS will listen to the club's proposals and will agree to have a meeting with the club to discuss the best way forward. As Michael Matheson pointed out, the social club has been established for around 44 years. It has built up a strong and proud membership of 350 people and has close links with the local community. The club is well known for its charity work. Dennis Canavan mentioned its support for Strathcarron hospice. The club also gives support to community groups, such as Neighbourhood Watch and the Braveheart project, by offering its premises for their meetings.
The club is regarded as a safe haven for prison officers. After a hard day, the club provides an environment in which they can unwind and relax after hours of intense vigilance. As their job is more stressful and dangerous than most, it is not a lot to ask that their efficiently run social club be allowed to remain standing.
The club members are—frankly—appalled to learn that the Scottish Prison Service wishes to demolish their building. Michael Matheson said, I think, that they were shocked and dismayed. The SPS's approach is certainly bad for morale, not least because the club members have invested between £44,000 and £45,000 in renovating the interior during the past year or so. To see that investment literally reduced to rubble would be a tragic waste.
It is time that the SPS agreed to listen to the club committee's reasonable proposals. That is no more than an extension of common sense and courtesy. I sincerely hope that a good outcome can be found. I urge the Scottish Prison Service and the club committee to enter into a dialogue with a view to resolving the matter to everyone's satisfaction. I very much hope that the minister will use his good offices to try to find a way out of the morass.
Michael Matheson and the two local constituency MSPs have covered matters well, but I will emphasise three points. We should consider first, the merits or otherwise of the decision as to whether the club should be destroyed; secondly, the way in which the matter has been dealt with; and thirdly, the wider matter of executive agencies, which was raised by Cathy Peattie.
I have visited Polmont, and know a little about it, although not enough for me to judge whether in order properly to expand the SPS college it is necessary to demolish the building that houses the social club. It appears that that is not the case. The SPS must show that such action is necessary and it must demonstrate that its decision stands up, which it has failed signally to do so far. I have criticised the Executive for its conduct with regard to jails, but I say that if it is necessary to demolish the club to improve and extend the college, we must accept that—as long as alternative accommodation is provided.
My second point relates to the way in which this whole thing has been gone about. I have been involved in many of the Justice 1 Committee's discussions with representatives of the Scottish Prison Service, so it does not surprise me at all. The Prison Service's personnel management and personnel relations are abysmal. It is ludicrous to drop this bombshell on the club—metaphorically speaking—at a time when the club has been spending a lot of money on improvement. If the club had not already spent the money, it would at least have been able to start with a nest egg for building a replacement, should that prove necessary. The conduct of the consultation—or rather the lack of consultation on the part of the SPS—has been quite disgraceful and, as other members have said, unacceptable.
That brings me to my third point, which Cathy Peattie covered a bit, and which the Justice 1 Committee has considered, which is the issue of executive agencies and the lack of control over them. Poor Richard Simpson will have to answer for the Prison Service in a straight-bat fashion—if I may use a cricketing analogy without being disloyal—despite the fact that his wicket has already been demolished. The SPS has conducted itself in a totally indefensible manner. If someone in the Scottish Executive justice department conducted themselves in such a way, the minister would take the flak and could do something about it, but that is not the case with executive agencies.
That whole problem, as was first highlighted by the Scottish Qualifications Authority and which is now being highlighted by the SPS and other agencies, must be tackled. We must determine how we, and ministers, will get a grip on executive agencies. The problem at Polmont might appear to be small and parochial, but it raises a key national issue. I hope that the minister will take to heart the message that we must get a grip on our executive agencies, and that the Executive will start doing something about it.
I congratulate Michael Matheson on securing the debate, and I congratulate the prison officers, their families and colleagues who are here. Some of us met the officers recently when they were launching their petition. It seems incredible to be talking about having to save a club that is so obviously successful, not just from the point of view of prison officers, but from that of the whole community. How many assets like the social club at Polmont do communities generally have?
It does not seem so incredible that we are having to discuss the matter, however, when we learn that the social club is owned by the Scottish Prison Service, which I hold in even less regard than does Donald Gorrie. The Justice 1 Committee has had nothing from the management of the SPS but arrogance and inability to consult at all levels. As for its recent statement that it intends to change its corporate personality and be more consultative, I am waiting for pigs to fly.
On the subject of wildlife, I did not know that one of the organisations that uses the Polmont prison officers' social club is the Laurieston and District Racing Pigeon Society, whose president stated in a letter of support for the club—and I apologise for this dreadful pun—that his
"members were shocked to hear that they would not have the privilege of holding our yearly ‘Doo' in the Polmont Staff Social Club."
The subject is not funny, but I thought that I would throw that in.
I also note that the social club is used by the local fly-fishing club and by the San Quentin Country and Western Club. I hope that all those organisations do not use the club at the same time. Anyway, that demonstrates the range of activities that take place in what is a community club.
Members have heard about the money that was spent. That money was spent for a reason—it was spent because the prison officers thought that they were going to be able to buy the property. The meat of the debate lies in the text of the motion. The SPS should
"honour its commitment to allow the club to purchase the property".
That is the starting point and the end point of the debate. The offer was made when the club needed building up. That has been done—investment has taken place and the club is profitable. It has much more money in its bank account than I have; it can start running my finances for me. I believe that the club has £12,000 in savings and has invested about £40,000. The club was built up to the point of its being ready to be purchased and to make its way within the community. At the last minute, the plug was pulled without a whisper of consultation—the club was simply told, "Your lease is not being renewed." That is typical of the management of the Scottish Prison Service.
I will be interested to hear how the Deputy Minister for Justice can defend the management of the SPS. I suggest, with respect, that Tony Cameron has the opportunity to show that he has changed his colours and that he is a listening chief executive. For years, he has trashed and demoralised prison officers through failure to reorganise the prisons. The prison officers run a successful club. Mr Cameron can show that he is listening to the people in the Prison Service, so let him make his first such gesture by allowing the prison officers to keep their building.
I support Michael Matheson's motion and thank him for bringing the matter to members' attention.
Like other members, I have been contacted by constituents who work at Polmont young offenders institution. They expressed their concerns about the SPS's planned closure of their social club. The social club is the only place where staff are able to relax, to wind down and to have a drink—while still in uniform—when their shifts have ended. There is no doubt that looking after some of the challenging youngsters can be hectic and stressful; the club can provide a comfortable venue for a relaxed debriefing after the day's events.
The club offers social and recreational value to its members and the charitable and fundraising ventures that it organises benefit greatly the local community in Falkirk. Many members have spoken about the organisations that use the club, which I do not propose to rehash. The club is seen as an integral part of the community, so for its members and others in the community, the closure of the club will mean the substantial loss of a safe and affordable recreational amenity.
I am given to understand that bookings have been taken for functions for more than a year in advance. That brings me to my concern about how the news of the planned closure of the club was communicated. Although I could be corrected, I understand that the news of the closure was supposed to be kept secret until the last minute—4 December—even though the decision had been taken some considerable time in advance. If the social club had had the slightest inkling that its future was in doubt, is it likely that it would have spent £40,000 to £50,000 on a programme of upgrading and refurbishment of the bar and lounge areas? If my figures are different from those of other members, that is possibly the Holyrood effect—we cannot get our figures right on that either.
If the SPS had taken more interest in its employees and in their club, it might have known of the planned expenditure. As things stand, the money has been abused. Has not the SPS been vindictive on a scale that members of the Parliament should deplore?
Battle-hardened politicians are used to the idea of repairing to one of the local hostelries for refreshment or light relief after a day's endeavour. Talking is thirsty work and we are happy to take our chances among the voting public, if we are lucky, or among colleagues or parliamentary journalists, if we are not so lucky. We will not have had to cut down a youngster who has taken, or who has attempted to take, his own life. The effects on people who are touched by suicide might never leave them. I hope that Michael Matheson will forgive my advert for the motion on suicide that I have lodged.
I said that I would be brief. I am eager to hear the minister's response.
I am happy to support Michael Matheson's motion on his local constituency interest, just as he and many other members have so excellently supported the prison officers who are employed in Peterhead in my constituency.
I see that Richard Simpson has just received a note on SPS notepaper, which I hope carries late advice of good news. We should perhaps characterise the relationship between the SPS and its staff as one that is based on trust and understanding: the SPS does not understand its staff and the staff can no longer trust the SPS.
In view of the amount of time that I have spent in prisons and in the company of prison officers over the past year, my friends and colleagues are perhaps beginning to wonder about my own bona fides, but the bona fides of the executive of the SPS are at the heart of today's debate. Does the SPS regard staff merely as a resource to fire off against problems and the duties that it has been given? Does the SPS regard prisoners simply as a commodity to be processed through the Prison Service? I hope not. The issue is entirely different, but such an attitude would be consistent with what often seem to be the commercial ambitions of the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service.
I would rather see the SPS show that it cares, that it is interested in public policy and that it wants to deliver on public safety. We can do that by having a Prison Service that is well resourced in buildings and programmes, but none of that will matter if we cannot deliver staff who are committed and who are able to go the extra mile that we get from excellence in public services.
As in the estates review's proposals for Peterhead, we do not know the cost of closing the social club and such a cost cannot necessarily be measured in pounds and pence. The cost will be paid in a continuing reduction in the morale of the people who are employed in the Prison Service.
Once again, the Prison Service has made an arcane and perverse decision that goes against everything that the Executive tells us about partnership. There is no partnership between the executive of the Prison Service and the people who are employed at Polmont if the SPS closes the facility in the way that has been described. The Prison Service and the minister will have noted that, when a community is roused as it was in Peterhead, a community can win. I see every sign that the community in Polmont is on the point of taking to the barricades; I will join those people there if it will help.
I know that the minister had extensive experience of the Prison Service prior to coming to the Parliament and that he has a personal understanding of human psychology. If we cannot look to the Prison Service for ethical, caring and professional behaviour towards staff and their responsibilities to the wider public, I see nothing but the bleakest of futures for the Prison Service.
I think that it was Oscar Wilde who said:
"I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."
I suspect tonight that, if Tony Cameron knocked on the door of the club in Polmont, he would not be accepted as a member.
I think that the quotation should actually be attributed to Mr Stevenson's alter ego, Groucho Marx.
I congratulate Michael Matheson on securing the time for this debate on a matter that is undoubtedly of considerable importance to the people in Polmont. That has been evident from all the speeches that have been made. I acknowledge the fact that Cathy Peattie, Dennis Canavan and Donald Gorrie have received representations on the matter. Indeed, I have discussed the issue with Cathy Peattie at some length a number of times, and correspondence has passed from my desk to that of the SPS.
First let me give a little history. The clubs—there were some 11 of them—were set up in the 1950s and shortly thereafter, when all or most of the prison staff were required to live in the vicinity of the prison. At that time, the SPS owned substantial property in the area of the prison. Today, very few properties are owned—a few in Edinburgh and a few in Cornton Vale—and there is no longer a requirement to live in the vicinity. The second change is that, of the 11 clubs, I think that three are left—although I am not sure of the exact figure. Certainly, few are left. There has been a process of divestment and clubs have gradually been closed or sold, or returned to operational use. There are only a few exceptions to that.
In 1998, when the policy was being promoted that the clubs could be sold off and that the SPS could divest itself of direct interest in them, all the remaining clubs were asked to express an interest if they wished to purchase the club. I am advised by the SPS that no such request was received from Polmont, but today's debate has shown that members of the Polmont club take a different view. However, as far as I am aware, there has been no subsequent pressure by the club to try to go through with the sale.
In the intervening period, the SPS—following the Executive's policy—has had to consider proper training for officers in the coming years. The SPS must ensure that the college at Polmont, or at an alternative site, is developed to promote training for new admissions to the service and for continuing professional development. I know the college at Polmont well; I have attended it many times. It has poor access, inadequate parking and dilapidated buildings, and it requires substantial refurbishment. The SPS is therefore totally correct, in its pursuit of correctional excellence, to consider this issue seriously before deciding how to proceed.
An option for the SPS was to find a fresh site and, in due course, to build a new college. Another option was to retain the existing college and revise, extend and improve it to make it fit for the 21st century—thus retaining some 70 jobs in the Polmont area and, appropriately, providing ready access, because it is in central Scotland. In August of this year, the latter option was chosen. The SPS is developing its plans accordingly.
A consequence of that decision is, I understand, that the site of the current staff club will be required to ensure safe access to the new kitchens for lorries. At present, access to the site is not wholly satisfactory. As to whether the site could be retained in some way within the present college, I do not have sufficient knowledge to give an answer. However, I understand that that is not possible and that the development is important.
The club is undoubtedly well run and—as we have heard from all members—is used extensively by members of the community and by clubs within that community, as well as by its 350 members and by its associate members. Clearly, the facility is highly regarded in the community. It seems to me that the outcome of discussions between the SPS, the college, the community and Falkirk Council should be that a resource of some sort should be available in the area to meet the needs of the community. Whether that facility will still be linked to the SPS is another matter.
I have learned from today's speeches that a substantial amount of money has been invested by the club. In meetings that have been held, the figure of £15,000 is all that has been mentioned. Today, a figure of between £40,000 and £50,000, and a figure of £45,000, have been put on the record. Investment has been made that, technically and legally, was made at the risk of the club, because that is the form of the lease. Nevertheless, we should consider carefully whether some form of recompense or negotiated settlement can be arrived at.
Under the lease that has been in place since the 1980s, notice must be given in December for termination of the lease in January. As far as I know, no attempt has been made to renegotiate that lease. Legally, therefore, the SPS did not have to give notice to the club until December.
I understand that two meetings have taken place between the club and the SPS at which there were discussions about alternative properties and alternative land. Again, those meetings were alluded to although I am not quite sure how accurate the figures were. Certainly, the figure of £300,000 is not correct. One figure referred to land and one to buildings. Those figures were being combined by my colleagues; perhaps that was not appropriate.
I have a letter from the SPS that was sent by e-mail dated 4 October. The letter details that it would cost £100,000 per acre, or £200,000 to buy the properties at Newlands Road.
That confirms what I was saying. Those figures should not be combined; they are separate figures.
It is important that there should be continuing dialogue between the club and the SPS. The SPS should consider carefully whether the site is an absolute requirement for the extension. If it is, the SPS must proceed because the college is important in terms of both employment and the future of the SPS.
Alternative sites might be considered and there might be some way in which the local community, Falkirk Council and the SPS could come together. At present, the SPS pays the rates and charges a peppercorn rent to the club. The club is therefore in a position whereby the SPS is giving some subsidy to the local community, and whether that should be the role of the SPS is a matter for considerable debate.
I cannot say that the SPS should change its position.
Will the minister confirm that the decision that was made by the SPS was not made by ministers? In view of the substantial issues of concern that have been raised by members of all parties today, will the minister make certain that the SPS is aware of that strong concern and that it pursues those matters in dialogue with the club?
I am happy to give that assurance and to indicate that I will hold further discussion with the SPS and convey personally the strong feelings that have been expressed by members of all parties.
I am concerned that we should have a modern prison service in which there is trust and understanding—not in the form that was described by Stewart Stevenson, but genuine trust and understanding between the SPS and its staff. The signing of the agreement that is just coming into place between the trade union and the SPS is a basis on which we can proceed. We have to undo some of the past antagonism between the two sides.
I hope that we can have further discussions in that area and that we can try to ensure that this worthwhile community effort is considered further in a satisfactory way. I hope that each side will at least understand where the other is coming from. I have given Lord James Douglas-Hamilton an undertaking that I will raise the matter with the SPS.
Meeting closed at 17:49.