Prison Estates Review
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3438, in the name of Christine Grahame, on behalf of the Justice 1 Committee, on its sixth report of 2002, on the prison estates review.
Before addressing the substance of the report, I make reference to a 12-page document that I received by e-mail yesterday evening. I first had the opportunity to read the document at 9 pm last night, on my way home from meetings. It was the Scottish Executive's response to our report and it came with a covering letter from the Minister for Justice's private secretary, explaining that he hoped that the Justice 1 Committee would find it useful. Somewhat disingenuously, the letter was dated "October 2002". Why do I suspect that it was sent out on the eve of the debate simply to enable ministers to claim that they have responded to our report?
The minister has applauded the committee procedure in the Parliament. However, in the discourteous and hasty dispatch of that response, he and his department have shown scant regard for committee members, many of whom have not had the opportunity to read it before the debate. We published our report more than three months ago, yet the minister has responded—allegedly—only on the eve of the debate. That will not do and I will ask the committee members whether they want to pursue the matter. I hope that some members will have the opportunity—albeit during the debate—to comment on the content of the response.
On behalf of the committee, I belatedly take this opportunity to thank our seemingly indefatigable clerking team, who worked at break-neck speed from the first evidence-taking session on 16 April until the production of the final report on the cusp of the summer recess. The Parliament is also indebted to the many witnesses, including those who submitted written evidence. They were a wide range of the usual suspects: the Scottish Prison Service management, the minister, prisoners, governors past and present, the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments, the Prison Service Union, a range of accountancy firms and Professor Marshall in Canada, who gave evidence via video link. All that evidence was collected within seven weeks, showing that we on the Justice 1 Committee are a determined lot.
I extend my personal gratitude to my colleagues on the committee, who applied themselves to the task in hand with determination and commitment, despite thrice-weekly meetings in May and twice-weekly meetings in June, to meet a timetable that was truncated by the Easter recess, which followed almost immediately the publication of the "Scottish Prison Service Estates Review". The review was promised to the original Justice and Home Affairs Committee for spring 2000, but it was delayed because the private build, public operate model was not even mentioned in the original specification. The review was further delayed because the figures did not add up—I shall say more about that later. Nonetheless, the committee was resolved and ended up with a unanimously agreed report. Every paragraph was signed off by every member, which demonstrated the valuable committee system at its best.
Things have moved on and a member of our press corps has questioned the need for a debate now—as if everything was done and dusted, which is plainly not the case. No doubt, in the course of members' speeches, the many issues that were thrown up during our inquiry will be developed. I shall therefore try to speak to the broader issues, focusing on four of them: private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships; HM Prison Peterhead; slopping out; and alternatives to custody. I shall link those issues to recent developments, in particular the minister's statement of 5 September, which gave a marginal opportunity to explore the issues. The limited time that we had then is, in part, why the committee is using its precious allocated time to have a two-hour debate today. If time allows, I shall also make cursory reference to the Executive's response, which, as I said, I received last night.
I shall address the four issues that I have identified in reverse order, as the last one should have been the starting point for the prison estates review, not the requirement to end slopping out, with which we agree. Paragraph 52 of the executive summary of the committee's report states:
"The Committee believes that slopping out should be eradicated as soon as possible and recommends that this be addressed by either refurbishing existing accommodation or by building new houseblocks on existing sites."
That issue is not a problem. However, it is not with that issue alone in mind that one should proceed either ostensibly or principally to redesignate and redesign not only the prison estate, but the service and the functioning of prisons themselves.
The committee challenged the notion that we can build our prison service for the decades ahead without addressing penal reform and simply by basing changes on projected and continuing increases in prison numbers. That idea should be exposed as too simplistic a premise in any event and it should be subject to even more critical examination—we know that a prison is a waste of resources, as so many offenders return after a few months. A substantial majority of prisoners serve a sentence of six months or less and there is no time for them to attend a relevant programme to deal with literacy or numeracy, let alone drug dependency. I refer the minister to paragraph 21 of the committee's report:
"The Committee is concerned that crucial decisions about the long-term future of the prison estate are being based on a single set of assumptions which must be subject to policy considerations. The Committee … considers that the Executive should have carried out a complete review of alternatives to custody, how they could be used more effectively and their potential impact on projected prisoner numbers in advance of the Estates Review."
It continues:
"It is not prudent to consider the Estates Review without examining penal policy."
On the effectiveness of throughcare, the committee said:
"The Committee is dismayed by the lack of reliable evidence on participation in rehabilitation and throughcare in the public sector. If we do not know the percentage of the prisoner population taking part in programmes, we cannot assess their effectiveness. It is essential that reliable data is produced on participation in these programmes and the outcomes."
During this week's questioning of Alec Spencer at the Justice 1 Committee, it was disclosed without even a cursory blush that the director of rehabilitation for the Scottish Prison Service could not produce data on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes. That is the level at which the SPS is operating.
On slopping out, the committee agreed—who would not?—that the practice should end, for the sake of the staff as well as the inmates.
I move quickly to the issue of PPP and PFI. The prison estates review considered three options: private build, private operate; private build, public operate; and public build, public operate. The committee expressed "serious concern" that the private build, public operate model—although commonplace in many sectors—did not figure in the review except as a late afterthought. In paragraph 43 of our report, we agreed with Stephen Nathan that there had been a "paucity of research" and we recommended that
"the Executive should carry out further comparative work".
No doubt, in responding to the debate, the minister will advise us what steps he has taken in that regard. I do not think that that is addressed in his written response.
The private build, private operate model is called the Kilmarnock option for short. Our findings on such a model were unequivocal—as were our other conclusions—and brought into question the quality of the operational leadership of the SPS, if such differentials as were placed before us, between private build, private operate and private build, public operate models, are to be believed. Paragraph 48 of our report states:
"This calls into question the quality of operational leadership and management of public sector prisons".
The Executive believes that the SPS would not be able to commission a building project, which seems extraordinary. We asked the minister, in connection with our other concerns about the leadership of the SPS, to
"explore the reasons why the SPS does not believe that it has sufficient in-house expertise".
The minister should not ask the SPS simply to come up with an alternative, but—much more fundamental—he should ask it why it did not and, more important, why it cannot. I will not mince my words, because the committee did not. In reference to Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the SPS, we say in paragraph 60 of the report:
"The Committee found the evidence of the Chief Executive of the SPS extraordinary and unconvincing on the issue of buildings, staffing and the space required and found his comments about the inefficiency of his organisation astonishing."
That paragraph, like all the others, was signed off and agreed word for word by all members of the cross-party committee. I have no doubt that the minister will advise us what cognisance he has taken of that comment.
Our concern extended to the use of Kilmarnock—the only private build, private operate prison in Scotland—as a model:
"The Committee is concerned that the specification for HMP Kilmarnock is being used as a point of comparison, despite evidence that there is inadequate space for staff in that building. The Committee believes the building specification is inextricably linked to staffing levels".
It is unfortunate—to say the least—that, despite that, the minister has embarked on instructing at least one PPP prison. Although it has been stated that that prison is to incarcerate remand prisoners, we have yet to be told how long the period between decision and occupation will be, despite my parliamentary questions. Perhaps the minister will give an answer in this debate.
On Peterhead—an issue that other members will address more fully—the committee is clear:
"The Committee therefore recommends that a long-term male … offenders' facility should remain at Peterhead with the following recommendations: the state of the building should be addressed either by refurbishment or new build and the difficulties associated with throughcare should be tackled."
I have checked the minister's measured response on Peterhead on 5 September:
"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."—[Official Report, 5 September 2002; c 13375.]
I think that, when pressed, the minister said that he could not see that changing for the foreseeable future. I compare that with Alec Spencer's response to the Justice 1 Committee this week, from which it is clear that Peterhead is reprieved pro tem, but that is all. In his evidence, Mr Spencer made it clear that the reprieve might be for eight or 10 years only and that no final decision has been made, although one might be made in the summer of next year.
Unlike the journalists, who have moved on to another instant headline, the committee—and whichever committee follows on—is committed to the long game and to keeping a watch on what happens in the months ahead.
I note that the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper on the prison estates review states that there are three key documents: the SPS report, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the Executive's consultation document. That is not so: there are four key documents and the Justice 1 Committee's report is certainly not the least of them.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 6th Report, 2002 of the Justice 1 Committee, Report on the Prison Estates Review (SP Paper 612).
Anyone who suggests that I, the Scottish Prison Service and the Executive have been less than co-operative towards the Justice 1 Committee is simply wrong. The committee members are well aware that I gave evidence on 23 May and that, at the committee's express request, I came back and gave evidence at a further meeting on 6 June. On 27 June, the Executive gave the committee notes on the consultation responses from Grant Thornton and Peter McKinlay. I made a substantive statement to the Parliament on 5 September. In many respects, that statement reflected some of the issues that the committee's report raised. I was subjected to questions for considerable time on that date. I also answered questions on prison estates issues when I met the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee at a joint meeting on 17 September.
We have sought to co-operate with the committee on the estates review. The review is an important matter and it is right and proper that the committee should address it. We are grateful to the committee for its contribution. Although the committee's report was published after the end of the formal consultation period, I indicated all along that we would not make any decisions before we had received the report. We honoured that commitment.
When the Scottish Executive was established in 1999, we inherited a prison estate that had, sadly, been starved of investment for many years. The result was that many of our prisons were more suited for the 19th century than for the 21st century. Nearly a third of prisoners still had to slop out. There were not enough prisoner places to cope with projected increases in the number of prisoners. The Scottish Prison Service and prison staff were showing remarkable effort and commitment in dealing with prisoners, but they were being asked to do so in conditions that simply were not good enough.
We had to face up to tough decisions and take action to make our prisons capable of contributing as effectively as possible to our aim of creating a safer Scotland. That is why we announced a comprehensive review of the prison estate and, on 21 March, produced the proposals for the future of the estate.
I have explained on numerous occasions why those proposals were not produced earlier. Had we produced proposals without considering the private build, public operate option, that would have been a source of some criticism and we would have been sent back to the drawing board. Instead, we tried to anticipate that. When Henry McLeish and I asked that that work be done, we had no notion of what the outcome would be. In fact, we rather hoped that it would produce figures much closer to the private build, private operate option than it did.
The estates review proposals focused on three main challenges: to provide enough places for the prisoner population; to end the practice of slopping out in our prisons as quickly as possible; and to find the option that represents the best value for money to the taxpayer. The review set out to identify ways in which those objectives could be achieved. To announce the result as a fait accompli would have been simple. We chose not to do so. In recognition of the importance of the issue not only for the Parliament but for the people of Scotland, we were anxious to have a full, genuine and constructive debate. We therefore published our proposals for public consultation and undertook to consider carefully all the responses before taking any final decisions. That consultation was conducted in line with the good practice on consultation that the Executive had introduced.
It is obvious that our proposals stimulated a considerable debate, including the Justice 1 Committee's extensive consideration of the proposals and the full report that followed. It should come as no surprise to members that I do not agree with everything in the report. The important point that I want to make is that we have had a full and open consideration of the issues as part of a genuine consultation. The decisions that I announced on 5 September differed in a number of ways from the original proposals. That does not mean that our original proposals were wrong. Rather, we took account of the responses to those proposals when we came to shape our final decisions. We said that we would listen. We have listened, as the final result shows.
The decisions that I announced on 5 September responded to many of the points that are raised in the committee's report. However, I will still make some observations on the main issues that are raised in the report. It is important to focus not on the past, but on the way ahead and how we can build on the work that has been done to create a modern and efficient prison system.
I welcome the fact that the report accepted the main principles that underlay the estates review's proposals, which primarily related to the need to house prisoners in proper conditions and, in particular, to end slopping out and to address overcrowding by providing additional prisoner places. Christine Grahame echoed that in her speech. Although there has been much debate about how best to meet those objectives, the consultation process showed that there was a considerable degree of consensus that the objectives were correct. That consensus provides a base from which to move forward.
I was pleased to see the report's recognition of the importance of prisoner rehabilitation and throughcare. The need to provide suitable conditions for the effective delivery of rehabilitation and throughcare was one of the main drivers for the estates review. The review was never simply about providing enough prisoner places. Rather, from the outset, its consideration of the size and quality of the prison estate was undertaken in the context of how to make Scotland safer by reducing reoffending.
Having said that, I agree with the committee's report that more needs to be done to obtain reliable data on the effectiveness of rehabilitation and throughcare activity. Only when such data are available can we reach informed decisions on how we can best focus our efforts and improve the services that we provide. We have made a start with the regular publication by the Scottish Prison Service of figures for return to custody. Further work will be done in that area and I have instructed a review into how best to use the level of recidivism or similar measures as tools in the context of performance management.
The committee's report called for steps to be taken to improve the efficiency of the public sector estate. Much has been done in recent years in that area, but I accept that more needs to be done. That is why I have asked the SPS to develop for 2003 a framework for the performance management of public sector prisons. That framework is to include published performance agreements, improvement targets and details of each establishment's performance.
In the light of the committee's serious concerns with regard to the chief executive of the SPS, is the minister confident that, under the current leadership, those reviews and changes will take place with the negotiated consent of the staff?
I am confident about that. Moves have already been made, including the agreement on attendance patterns that was reached and the subsequent agreement. Indeed, after I made my statement to the Parliament on 5 September, the management of the SPS and the trade union side put out their joint statement. All that augurs well for the co-operation that will be needed.
As for monitoring the new framework for efficiency in the public sector estate, I indicated to the two justice committees that I would welcome their views on how best to involve parliamentary committees in trying to ensure effective monitoring of what is going on.
Much was said in the committee's report, and in response to consultation, about the cost gap between the public and private sectors. Despite many claims that the estates review exaggerated the size of that gap, no one was able to produce credible alternative costings that removed that gap, as the committee's report acknowledges. It is clear from the extensive work on the subject that was done during the estates review that the private sector can deliver prison places more quickly and more cheaply than the public sector can.
Christine Grahame thought it a matter of criticism that there was not an in-house team within the Prison Service ready to build a public prison. The role, duty and responsibilities of the SPS are to develop, maintain and deploy existing expertise to manage the existing estate. In common with other parts of the public sector—this is in no way unique to the Prison Service—the SPS simply does not have the resources or expertise to carry out all the work of designing and constructing new prisons and I do not believe that that would be the best option for using public money.
The Justice 1 Committee's view certainly was not that the SPS should take a direct hand in design; it was simply that the service should commission a private firm to undertake that work, just as the construction of house blocks is commissioned. That was the committee's view; it was not just my personal view.
I understood from her speech that the convener of the Justice 1 Committee thought that the SPS should have the expertise to get on with that work. If I misunderstood, I apologise, but that is how I interpreted what Ms Grahame said.
Because our approach involves buying prison places instead of putting a new prison on to the SPS's balance sheet, it is more affordable, freeing up capital for investment in the public sector estate. As I said, the allocation over the next three years of £110 million for investment in the estate—specifically at Glenochil, Perth, Polmont and Edinburgh prisons—represents the biggest commitment to the refurbishment of the prison estate in the SPS's history. That is why, in addition to our investment in the public sector, I announced on 5 September that the first of the two new prisons to be built would be constructed and run by the private sector. The new prison is needed quickly to address the recent dramatic rise in the number of remand prisoners and to enable substandard accommodation elsewhere in the estate to close.
When I listened to Christine Grahame, I could not help but reflect that she was inviting us to embark on yet another examination of all the alternatives to custody and the whole issue of penal policy before getting on and building prisons. The level of overcrowding in our prisons and the associated pressures are not things that we can simply wish away. If the quickest route to constructing new prisons is the one that we are embarking on, I believe that our decision was right, particularly with regard to the quite exceptional rise in the number of remand prisoners—a 28 per cent increase since this time last year. Specifically, we ought to be addressing the issue of remand, as I indicated in my statement on 5 September.
We remain committed to a strong public sector. I am therefore anxious that the public sector should be given the chance to show that it can compete with the private sector on cost and speed in the provision of new prisons. That is why I announced on 5 September that, if the SPS and the trade unions can produce a robust and credible plan for the second new prison that is competitive, offers value for money and delivers the required number of places on time, I will be prepared—indeed delighted—to take that forward either wholly in the public sector or as a private build, public operate project.
Irrespective of how the second new prison is provided, the majority of prisoners will continue to be held in the public sector. We therefore need to work to make the whole of the public sector more efficient. I was encouraged by the partnership agreement that was reached earlier this year between the SPS and the trades unions, which commits both sides to work together to make the public sector more competitive. For our part, we have demonstrated that commitment to the public sector by announcing the £110 million capital investment programme. Taken together with the two new prisons, that programme should, once completed, enable us to end slopping out for good, an objective that I know is shared across the chamber.
I was pleased to note that the SPS and the trade union side issued a joint statement in response to my announcement on 5 September, welcoming the package of investment and making a commitment to work in partnership. Richard Simpson and I have agreed to attend a joint SPS/TUS event later this year to help SPS staff and management to take forward work on bridging the gap.
I will say a few words about HMP Peterhead and the management of sex offenders. The responses to the estates review's proposals showed a strong body of opinion in favour of keeping Peterhead open. We listened to those views and decided to keep Peterhead open. That is not the end of the story, however. We will act to improve the conditions at Peterhead. In its response to the estates review, the Prison Officers Association Scotland suggested how prisoners at Peterhead might be given access to night sanitation. Discussions on those proposals have already begun between the SPS and the POAS. Work on installing electric power in cells is expected to start in the spring of next year. Consideration will be given to what other improvements might be made. In the longer term, development plans will be prepared for each public sector prison, including Peterhead. Decisions on future capital investment will be based on those plans.
On the management of sex offenders more generally, we look forward to receiving comments by the end of the year on the report of the group chaired by Alec Spencer. As I indicated on 5 September, that will be followed by discussion between the SPS and partner agencies, with the aim of introducing proposals for the next session of Parliament.
I believe that the consultation that we inaugurated on the publication of the estates review was full, frank and open. It was not simply about the provision of prisoner places; it reflected wider criminal justice issues. In the light of further analysis and rolling-out of alternatives to custody, we were able to revise down the number of places that we would need. The Justice 1 Committee report featured prominently in that consultation; it was constructive and helpful. In my announcement on 5 September, I believe that I reflected many of the concerns that were raised not just by the committee but during the consultation. Cumulatively, that improves the quality of decision making and brings it closer to the people of Scotland. I welcome the Justice 1 Committee's report.
Some members may feel that there is, given the minister's statement of 5 September, no need for this debate. However, the minister did not address fully in his statement a number of the particular concerns that are highlighted in the Justice 1 Committee's report on the prison estates review. A ministerial statement does not afford members the opportunity to debate issues in any great detail.
Will the member give way?
The minister should let me make some progress first.
My intervention is in relation to what Michael Matheson just said.
I am sure that one of the first lessons that the minister will take from this debate is that the way in which the Scottish Prison Service has handled the prison estates review is exactly how not to undertake a policy review, judging from the mess that the service has made over the past three years.
I acknowledge that the Justice 1 Committee's report was probably uncomfortable reading for the minister, but I hope that it was also uncomfortable reading for senior managers in the Scottish Prison Service, and that they recognise the challenge that has been laid before them in a number of the concerns that the committee expressed.
The SPS's senior managers should be very uncomfortable with the committee's report because it
"calls into question the quality of operational leadership and management of public sector prisons".
It also calls into question whether the Scottish Prison Service is sufficiently accountable to the public. It highlights concerns that were expressed about evidence that was given by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. The report states that
"The Committee found the evidence of the Chief Executive of the SPS extraordinary and unconvincing",
and that it
"found his comments about the inefficiency of his organisation astonishing."
The committee was astonished not only that the organisation was so inefficient, but that its chief executive was so open about it. That begs the question what the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service had been doing during the previous four years that he was in charge of it. I hope that the SPS's senior management recognises the challenge that lies ahead. I must confess, however, that the committee's findings do not exactly inspire me with confidence in the ability of the SPS's senior managers to rise to that challenge.
I sometimes wonder whether the minister appreciates the depth of concern among members throughout the chamber about the way in which the SPS operates and about its stewardship of our prisons. I am surprised that despite the amount of criticism that has been levelled at it, it appears to be business as usual at the SPS. If we are to have confidence in the ability of our senior managers within that public service to deliver a modern and efficient prison service, the service should not be built on the inefficiencies of the past. It is clear that those senior managers are part of the problem.
I welcome—as, I am sure, do all members—the minister's announcement of a new monitoring system through a performance framework, but why has it taken so long for the Scottish Prison Service to wake up to the fact that it needs to be more accountable for its actions? I confess that I do not share the minister's confidence in the Scottish Prison Service's senior management, even following his announcement today.
The culture of secrecy that lies at the heart of the SPS is one of the major inhibitors to examining the way in which our prison estate and the SPS operate. When I have been in correspondence with the SPS, I have at times been unable to help but feel that the organisation is somewhat resentful that MSPs dare to question it on particular issues. When its representatives came before a committee of the Parliament, I could not help but feel that they were somewhat reluctant to come along and answer questions from MSPs. I hope that the minister will make it clear to the SPS that the days when its senior management could, as civil servants, do what they liked are gone. They are accountable to the Parliament and to the people of Scotland. They should accept that and be prepared to be so.
Alongside the culture of secrecy within the SPS are fundamental problems in ensuring that private prisons are sufficiently accountable to the public, because issues to do with private prisons are hidden behind the cloak of commercial confidentiality. It took the Justice 1 Committee six months to get access to the contract for Kilmarnock prison after protracted correspondence between the committee and Premier Prison Services Ltd and the SPS. Given that the Executive is intent on privatising yet further the prisons estate, it is essential that the problems of insufficient accountability and scrutiny of the running of private prisons be addressed. I hope that the minister will in his closing remarks be clear about the action that the Executive is prepared to take to ensure that there is no hiding behind commercial confidentiality, and about the fact that committees of the Parliament will be able to scrutinise openly and accountably what happens in private prisons.
A key point about privatisation and the contracts for private prisons particularly concerned the Justice 1 Committee. When the committee was taking evidence, Wendy Alexander brought up the way in which the contracts had been set up in 1999. She questioned whether any internal or external work had been commissioned to examine whether the cost structure that was agreed in 1998 for Kilmarnock prison had been fulfilled over the past four years. Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, Tony Cameron said that there had not. Given that the minister has decided to build another private prison—and, possibly, a third—I would have thought that it would be a priority to review the contract for Kilmarnock to see whether the cost structure and staffing levels that were agreed back in 1998 have been fulfilled. I hope that the minister will recognise that that should be a priority, and that the matter should be reviewed quickly.
I turn to the Spencer report. The Justice 1 Committee was unable to examine the issues, given that the minister had decided to set up an expert group under Alec Spencer, the director of rehabilitation and care at the Scottish Prison Service. His report on the future management of sex offenders within our prison estate makes interesting reading. The panel of experts recommended that long-term sex offenders should be contained in a single-purpose prison. The report suggests that Glenochil prison, for example, could deal with the numbers of sex offenders in the Scottish Prison Service system.
In his statement in September, the Minister for Justice ruled out consideration of another prison to deal with long-term sex offenders and stated that such prisoners would for the foreseeable future be dealt with at Peterhead. The expert panel report stated that there are in the region of 450 to 500 long-term sex offenders in the Scottish prisons estate and the panel believes that we require enough places for those prisoners. Given that Peterhead has capacity for only 300 long-term sex offenders, it is obvious that we need another 150 to 200 places. I hope that the minister will acknowledge that the best way to address the problem is to build the extra 200 places at the single-purpose site at Peterhead.
I hope that the minister will show that it is ministers who are driving matters, rather than their officials. The minister's credibility on such things is at issue. There is a need to tackle the problem of how in future we will deal with long-term sex offenders. If the expert group recognises that there is a need for another 200 places, those places should be provided at the single-purpose site at Peterhead. The minister should be big enough to act on that.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for Justice has responded to the persuasiveness of the arguments that the Justice 1 Committee advanced in producing a much more acceptable package of proposals for the future of Scotland's prisons. In particular, I welcome the decision to keep Her Majesty's Prison Peterhead, which is a national resource for convicted long-term adult male sex offenders. It is also a centre of excellence that offers a range of programmes that are designed to challenge offending behaviour in order to reduce the risk of reoffending on return to the community.
I am aware that the buildings at Peterhead were built in 1888—more than 110 years ago—and that no prisoners have access to power in their cells or to proper night-time sanitation. The Justice 1 Committee recommended not only that the long-term male adult sex offenders facility should remain at Peterhead, but that the state of the building should be addressed, either by refurbishment or by new build, and that the difficulties associated with throughcare should be tackled.
I invite the minister to set out the options for modernising Peterhead and to specify the time scale for each option. For example, will he contemplate establishing new prison facilities on the publicly owned land adjacent to Peterhead prison? Will he modernise the existing buildings or engage in demolition and new build? If he will do the latter, how will he do it and over what time period? At the very least, dealing with night-time sanitation and electric power in cells should be a priority.
On the debate on private and public sector prisons, the Conservatives have long advocated the benefits of private prisons, because we believe that there are important places for the public and the private sectors. We take a pragmatic view about the most appropriate balance, taking all circumstances into account. A number of private sector advantages were highlighted in the estates review; for example, the contractual relationship that governs a private build, private operate prison increases the drive for innovative ways of working, which can encourage the public sector to be more competitive. Also, risks are transferred while the operational advantage is absorbed by the public sector. That means that should delays occur in private prisons such as those that occur often in the public sector, the private company must absorb the cost.
Private prisons are more cost effective. For instance, SPS prisons tend to require 25 per cent more staff than prisons that are run by the private sector and the SPS. The Scottish Prison Service can control the level of involvement of the private prison concerned.
The minister suggested building a new private facility that would be of service within the Scottish prison estate. I recommend that if he chooses to go down that path, he should consider creating a facility for remand prisoners under strict contractual conditions using the tender specifications that are applied to the private sector. The minister confirmed that the remand population is 28 per cent larger this year than it was last year, so with the closure of a number of public sector prisons, it is desirable that development proceed in that area. Perhaps the minister will say what his preferred site or sites might be for such an initiative and what detailed plans he has in mind for the sites at Low Moss and Glenochil.
It must be remembered that public sector prisons and private sector prisons in Britain are undergoing transition and that the services of each are not exactly comparable. Nonetheless, Kilmarnock has performed reasonably well, overall. The chief inspector of prisons for Scotland acknowledged that Kilmarnock can deliver effective services and can often be innovative. That resulted in the recognition of 12 items of best practice in Kilmarnock's formal inspection report. That compares with eight items at HMP Edinburgh and four items at HMP Greenock, both of which had inspections during the same period as Kilmarnock's inspection. I do not hesitate to say that, as a new organisation, Kilmarnock prison is making an important contribution to the Prison Service, even if the range of its programmes is not as wide as provision elsewhere in the Scottish prison estate.
The member said that Kilmarnock prison had been innovative. Does he care to say how it has been innovative? In doing so, will he note parliamentary written answers S1W-24735, S1W-24608 and S1W-24733, which were given in response to questions that I asked on that subject and all of which indicate that no identifiable innovations are known to ministers?
The member should study closely what the inspector of prisons said. I also recommend that the member reads Dr McManus's evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, which says:
"private sector prisons are much more accountable than state prisons. The contract under which they are run specifies in minute detail what they must provide on a daily basis."
He also describes how that is monitored.
I described the general conclusion that I have drawn. Of course, many private prisons have been established south of the border, too. I can say only that the debate continues. The public and private sectors have much to learn from each other.
I hope that the minister will describe his proposals for introducing plans to end the degrading practice of slopping out, which requires extra prison officers being on duty to escort prisoners throughout the night. Prison officers and prisoners are united in wishing for an end to that disagreeable practice.
Paragraph 11 of the committee's report calls for cells to be upgraded to include a hot and cold water supply and electric power. Overcrowding needs to be addressed urgently. It follows that the modernisation of the prison estate on a continuing and rolling basis will enhance the quality of life of prison officers and prisoners. Many members of the public might not be minded to be sympathetic to prisoners, but they certainly understand the demanding and arduous duties that Scotland's dedicated prison officers face, and the need to have good working arrangements in prisons that are secure, efficient and rehabilitative.
As for alternatives to custody, less than half the fines that sheriff courts impose are paid in the available time. I realise that the Executive is drawing up pilot projects for two courts where alternatives to custody will be used, but in our view fines should be deducted at source from salaries or benefits, which would reduce the incidence of fine default. Imprisonment should be a last resort—if it did not exist as an ultimate sanction, many fines and compensation orders would remain unpaid.
On the public interest and protection of the public, we have always said that there should be honesty in sentencing and that criminals should serve the sentence that the court hands down to them. The Justice 1 Committee-sponsored surveys into public attitudes to alternatives to imprisonment showed backing for greater truth in sentencing. The report on those surveys said that
"Current arrangements for early release are viewed as difficult to understand or to justify"
and lead to an increase in cynicism about, and distrust of, the system.
In primitive societies of a bygone era, all punishment was either capital or corporal. The stocks, or comparable humiliation, were recommended for minor offences. We have come a long way since those dark ages. Our policy on prisons—sadly, they will always be with us—should be a continuing priority with a view to deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection and a general reduction in the level of crime.
Therefore, subject to satisfactory responses to the questions that I asked, accompanied by a constant sufficiency of resources, we will support the sure, steady and steadfast upgrading of Scotland's prison estate for the years to come.
I welcome the minister's statement and particularly the record investment in the Scottish Prison Service. I will touch on some of what Christine Grahame said. She was correct—the Justice 1 Committee worked as an effective team and many hours were put into the report. As I said in a previous debate, I had an open mind on the way forward for Peterhead, but Christine Grahame failed to recognise the fact that the consultation document contained a recommendation that Peterhead prison should close. The minister listened to every point that was raised effectively by the local member of the Scottish Parliament, by the local community and—which is important—by the Parliament.
The Parliament must grow up. When the Executive reconsiders its position, we should accept that and we should constructively consider the way forward. The people of Scotland do not want us to sit in the Parliament and become involved in the political point-scoring exercise that Christine Grahame's speech was about. We must move forward and consider that the important issue that faces the people of Scotland is ensuring that we deliver an effective service. From experience of the issues that the Peterhead community raised effectively, I learned that Peterhead delivers a service and that the local people accept that. We must move on.
I hope that the member appreciates that my speech was remarkably politically restrained and that I kept to the committee's report. My problem is simply that the committee recommended that a long-term sex offenders unit should stay at Peterhead, but we do not have a crystal-clear commitment that such a unit will stay for good. That is not the message that is being given and ministers can clear that up today. Alec Spencer told us that we can see only 10 years up the road and that no commitment has been given after that. That is my problem.
I know of no prison that we could say will remain for good. A commitment has been given on Peterhead prison, which I welcome. The clear message to the unelected quangos out there is that the Parliament has shown them how they should consult. They should learn from our experience. People are quick to knock the Parliament, but we have sent a clear message that we are willing to listen to the people of Scotland. We have put in place the framework for doing that. The people of Peterhead will acknowledge that, while they continue to examine ways of improving their prison.
While the arguments were being made about Peterhead, Dr McManus raised in his evidence several issues that had to be dealt with, such as throughcare and the difficulties with Peterhead prison's location. Later, I will touch on the leadership that is required in the Scottish Prison Service to ensure that its services are delivered locally. The SPS should listen to local staff's views on Peterhead prison and on the best way to deliver throughcare. I did not agree with everything that Peter McKinlay said in evidence, but we could learn much from his experiences in his previous life as the chief executive of Scottish Homes.
We must audit the effectiveness of the service that is provided at Peterhead prison. Stewart Stevenson—rightly—gave his view several times on the effectiveness of the STOP 2000 programme. That programme has much mileage and must run for several years to allow us to clarify whether it is a success. We should acknowledge that the STOP 2000 programme is the foundation of the service and learn from that. The services that are provided at Barlinnie should also be recognised as successes.
In my last speech in a chamber debate on the subject, I raised the point that the estates review is not only about bricks and mortar. I appreciate the difficulties and challenges that the Parliament faces and the challenges that the Scottish Executive faces, but the estates review was conducted in terms of the bricks and mortar without consideration being given to the needs of the Prison Service. We must consider those needs.
During the committee's evidence-taking sessions, we were impressed by the commitment of the Scottish Prison Service staff and support staff. We need to recognise that the Prison Service is not only the prison officers and that staff in every sector of the system deliver services within the Prison Service. Michael Matheson touched on the point that morale in the Scottish Prison Service is low and we must address that because it is unacceptable for morale to be low. The Scottish Prison Service management needs to show leadership on that issue. The Minister for Justice faces a serious challenge in ensuring that the low morale that the committee detected during several evidence-taking sessions is dealt with.
In my previous speech on the subject I touched on public-private partnerships versus the private build option and said that I was not opposed to that option. I remain of that opinion. I see no difficulty on ethical grounds in building other private prisons similar to Kilmarnock prison. That said, however, my preference is for the public-private option. I believe that there is a grey area in the Executive's response in respect of its undertaking to interrogate the public-private option.
Another grey area is the large number of academics who provided information and evidence to the committee, but failed to suggest alternatives. They were quick to criticise the fact that the public-private option was not delivered by the Scottish Prison Service, but they were not as quick to propose alternatives. I also criticise Grant Thornton for its opinion that the public-private option could be delivered, but not as a guaranteed option. I welcome the Executive's commitment to the possibility of the trust option and point out that that is another example of the way in which the Executive has demonstrated that it is willing to listen to the points of view that have been raised by the wide range of political parties in the Scottish Parliament.
I welcome the Executive's record investment in the Prison Service. The Parliament should take credit for considering the ways in which to improve the Prison Service. People tend to say that there are no easy answers and I am sure that the minister will say that when he makes his wind-up speech, but the committee has in its report made suggestions for improvement of the Scottish Prison Service and I believe genuinely that they will be acted on by the Executive.
I welcome the publication of the committee report, which is an influential and tough report that does the Parliament credit. It serves as an illustration that our new democracy in Scotland is working well. I joined the committee on the visit that it made to Peterhead prison a few months ago because I wanted to see at first hand the expertise at Peterhead. The trip was fascinating.
One of the best points about the consultation is the fact that the minister accepted the case for keeping Peterhead open. We should congratulate the local community on its dignified and effective campaign. However, the campaigners are not at the finishing line yet and the minister needs to back up his verbal support for the prison by putting some hard cash on the table. That would demonstrate that long-term investment in the prison will be made.
When Christine Grahame asked the minister about time scales, he mouthed something that sounded like "100 or 200 years". Is that not long term? The minister has to give us an indication of the time scale for long-term investment, because the community does not want to have to rehearse its past campaign. Those people want to know that a long-term commitment to the prison has been made. Perhaps when the Deputy Minister for Justice winds up today, he will make that long-term investment pledge.
Reference has been made to the Spencer report, which said that sex offenders should be housed in a single location. That report also set out the need for more sex offender places. Let us press ahead and build the new block on the Peterhead site. I cannot understand why ministers cannot give that commitment today.
The committee report mentioned the importance of rehabilitation; rehabilitation is vital and we would not be talking about building new prisons if we had managed in the past to put good rehabilitation measures in place. Reoffending would have been cut drastically, which would have reduced the need for new prisons. I welcome the mention of rehabilitation that the minister made in his opening speech, but a system is not in place that could measure the success of rehabilitation.
In March this year, I asked a couple of parliamentary questions on prisons. In the minister's reply to a question about individual prisons' effectiveness in cutting the reoffending rate, he said that no system is in place to measure the effectiveness of local prisons. That means that we cannot measure the effectiveness of one prison against another. Surely we need to do that in order to discover which are successful so that we can replicate that success in other prisons?
I also asked about the measurement of rehabilitation success. Tony Cameron's reply was that
"It is not possible to measure rehabilitation".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 25 March 2002; p 272.]
Surely it must be possible to measure rehabilitation. If someone with a drug habit goes to prison, is put on a programme and six months down the line is not using drugs, surely that is a measurement of rehabilitation? Surely it is possible to discover which prisons are managing to achieve such objectives? I do not accept Tony Cameron's answer and that issue has to be addressed.
Both the prison estates review and Jim Wallace's statement in September indicated that investment would be made in a number of prisons. Craiginches prison was not mentioned in either, but the Thursday after Jim Wallace's statement, the chief inspector of prisons felt it necessary to take the unprecedented step of publishing a special report on the state of HMP Aberdeen at Craiginches, which he described as the worst report on any prison in Scotland. Craiginches prison has been crying out for investment since 1997 but, five years later, we continue to wait for that investment.
The chief inspector of prisons reported on the prison, but the minister has neither mentioned it nor made a commitment to spend on it one penny of the £110 million spending he announced. Craiginches is a prison in which 85 per cent of the inmates use drugs. The prison has virtually no rehabilitation services—
I will take an intervention if I have time to do so.
No. The member is in his last minute.
I say to the minister that we need action on Peterhead, Craiginches and other local prisons in Scotland that do not have adequate rehabilitation services. Effort needs to be made to reduce reoffending. Action also needs to be taken on the accountability of the Scottish Prison Service's management. Tony Cameron must go; prison officer morale will not lift until he does. Will the minister please sort out the SPS management problems?
Christine Grahame began by rightly saying that the Justice 1 Committee's report is a key document in the debate. Christine will be pleased to know that the report is so popular that no copies of it are left. I thought that that would cheer her up. Because of that, I have not had an opportunity to read the whole report. However, from what I have seen of the report, the Justice 1 Committee has made a good job of it.
It seems that we have been discussing prisons for ever—I have a feeling of déjà vu. I apologise if I repeat points that I have made many times before, although there is no need for me to do that—the points are important. The Parliament is making much progress on the subject. I listened to the contributions from the various parties and, apart from the particular points on which the parties concentrated, we have heard a joint analysis of the context in which prisons should operate.
Even the Tories made it clear this morning that they believe that imprisonment in respect of fines should be used only as a last resort. Prior to devolution, did members ever think that we would find consensus on examining the context in which we use our prisons? That would have seemed a dream. Every party should recognise the progress that we have made.
We should also recognise that we inherited a crumbling prison estate in which there was overcrowding; a high incidence of drug taking; the unacceptable practice of slopping out; a lack of accountability; and no commitment to or measurement of rehabilitation.
HMP Longriggend is long gone. That decision was taken by the SPS almost a year ago. Having visited Longriggend with my colleagues from the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, I believe that that was the right decision. Now, we are about to make the correct decision to close Scotland's most violent prison—Low Moss. Let us take some credit for the progress that has been made. There will be dramatic improvement, but further matters must be examined.
Like many others, I am concerned about the role of the public sector and how it has been criticised for not being accountable, up-to-date or modern enough in its approach to running the prison service. One of the reasons that the Parliament exists is to analyse what is being done. If we truly believe in the mix of public and private investment—whether in our prisons or anywhere else—there must be a level playing field, which currently there is not.
The Justice 1 Committee is correct to point out that we must allow for the development and modernisation of in-house teams in the public sector with the necessary expertise to oversee new design and build. If we do not recognise that there has been a failing to modernise those teams in the prison service—and the public service in general—we will put the public sector at a disadvantage when Jim Wallace throws out his challenge to the public sector to build and run a public prison. However, I welcome that challenge.
The issue of pay and conditions has been rehearsed many times so I will not rehearse it again today. I am satisfied with the Executive's response, although it must deliver on its important promise. The public sector should not be run at the expense of the work force.
The private sector should be slighted for its approach to pensions because it does not take the matter as seriously as it should. The public sector has a good pensions record. Please let us not lose sight of that: if we do not lead the way in the types of pension schemes that there should be for all workers—in the public or private sectors—it will be detrimental to society in the long run.
Am I running out of time, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
I have not had a chance to mention Cornton Vale. I feel strongly that we must get it right for Cornton Vale. I hope that in the minister's closing remarks, he will comment on plans to tackle the position of women offenders in the near future.
As a member of the old Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I could not let the opportunity pass to participate in the debate. Why? Because the prison estates review was the most eagerly awaited report to come before the Parliament and certainly before the old Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
My membership of that committee has come and gone, together with my membership of its offspring, the Justice 2 Committee. During the time that we waited for the report—I struggle to find a euphemistic way to say this—relations between the officials of the Scottish Prison Service and members of the committee were strained.
Paul Martin, Michael Matheson and Christine Grahame commented on the managerial and leadership abilities of the senior management of the Scottish Prison Service—reluctant and resentful—so I see that things have not changed.
It was delay after delay and all the while the committee members went on prison visits, court visits, procurator fiscal visits and even a visit to the Crown Office. Finally, towards the end of March 2002, the review was published. That was some gestation period. I leave to others the task of reviewing the somersaults and contortions that have been performed since that date. Naturally, there has been considerable interest in the private prison at Kilmarnock. My visit there to see things for myself came not as a result of the Parliament's keen interest, but as a result of the interest of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee in North Lanarkshire. I did not see anything better or worse than anyone else, and I was undoubtedly satisfied to note the progress and success of Kilmarnock recorded in the review. I quote:
"It has been recognised by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons that Kilmarnock can deliver not only effective services, but can often be innovative".
The Executive's response to the committee's report states:
"Kilmarnock has a number of very positive features such as the longest time out of cell of any establishment in Scotland and the fullest working week with time off permitted for approved activities such as programme interventions."
Compared with Kilmarnock, Edinburgh and Greenock prisons did not receive anything like the number of recommendations in that response.
Only a fool would not recognise that some members have ideological difficulties with the concept of private prisons and that they remain bitterly opposed to the notion that private profit can motivate people to build facilities for incarceration.
I must make it plain that, with cross-party agreement—which includes a Conservative member—the Justice 1 Committee report states:
"Given these concerns, the Committee does not believe that HMP Kilmarnock should be used as a point of comparison for proceeding with further private prisons in Scotland."
That is unequivocal.
I do not doubt that. I merely quoted from the Executive's response to that report, in which I found some encouragement.
For some, the opposition to private prisons is a long-held view and for others it is a temporary point of principle that is to be ditched at the wayside along with other flotsam and jetsam. The Conservatives have been more pragmatic. We believe that there is room for both sectors and that they can learn from each other. We are happy to praise the work at Peterhead, which is in the public sector, and to appreciate what the private sector offers. I understand why people who do not have a direct interest in the issue might be concerned by reports that the Kilmarnock prison is like a hotel in that reservations are required and it is palatial. I have been there, and it is not. However, the prison is a vast improvement on what is on offer at a number of other establishments. The governor and staff are justifiably proud of the opportunities, such as the visiting area and a host of other improvements that they use for the benefit of prisoners who are committed to their care for the period of detention.
I turn briefly to Low Moss. I have passed Low Moss several times recently; it is a most depressing thought that we expect to change people's behaviour in such an institution. The estates review recommends the closure of Low Moss and, after the recent disturbances, it is hard to disagree with that.
I speak as a human being and as a member of the Justice 1 Committee who, incidentally, happens to be a Liberal Democrat. I welcome the changes that ministers have made to the prison estates review proposals. Those changes do not go far enough, but they are welcome and the Executive has shifted a bit. Ministers must accept that, rightly or wrongly, among people to whom the committee talked, including members and others, there is widespread and perhaps universal opinion that the attitude and competence of the Scottish Prison Service's management require serious examination. That is a fact to which ministers must face up.
Pauline McNeill rightly said that we have been discussing prisons for ever. We have been discussing the wrong issue. We should increasingly discuss how not to send people to prison by creating the sort of society in which people do not commit crime. We need a war to reduce crime; not a soft, liberal-with-a-small-l, wet war, but a serious and effective way of dealing with crime. We are failing dismally and we must get stuck into the issue. That will involve a range of measures, including rehabilitation and helping prisoners not to reoffend, alternatives to custody, diversions from prosecution and early intervention to prevent people from going down the wrong path. We do not tackle the issue seriously. There has been progress, for which ministers deserve credit, but we must mobilise all departments to work together, which they fail to do at present, and we must put heavy resources—the sort of money that we are prepared to spend on building jails—into preventing people from going to jail.
There is a desperate lack of youth recreation facilities. The number 1 complaint of any group of school pupils is that there is nothing to do in the evenings. We must remedy that. We cannot complain when people go astray if there is nothing worth while for them to do.
Voluntary organisations dealing with offenders, and especially those dealing with youth work, are grossly underfunded. They get money for project funding. The Government is daft on projects, but it will not give organisations core funding. Let us forget about those rather mendacious and, in some cases, ludicrous projects, and fund organisations for what they are really doing. Youth organisations nationally got a £40,000 training grant to train volunteers, and people to train the volunteers, but it has suddenly been removed for no reason whatever. The New Opportunities Fund seems to discriminate against voluntary organisations.
Recent research has shown that 70 per cent of the persistent offenders who come before the children's panels had first appeared there as a care and protection case, because there had been a family break-up or violence in the family. In any sensible society, we would put much more money into helping families that are coming adrift. If we intervened at that stage, we could stop reoffending and nip crime in the bud.
We want to develop many more successful programmes. Every organisation that I speak to will say that there is a very good thing in North Lanarkshire, Moray, or wherever, and that other people should copy it, but that simply does not happen. There are good national programmes run by organisations such as Barnardo's and Airborne Initiative, which could profitably be copied but are not.
I find the performance of ministers dismal. I recently received a set of answers to my questions of 17 and 26 September, and they are the worst ministerial answers to questions that I have received in my considerable experience. I appeal to the minister. As I know well, he is an intelligent, decent and liberal man. Is he prepared to preside over a Scottish justice system that sends a higher proportion of people to jail than virtually any civilised country on the globe?
I feel that I should start with an apology to the chamber, and especially to the opening speakers, for my late arrival. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your understanding of the vagaries of ScotRail timetabling.
I want to confine my remarks to Low Moss prison, which we all know is unfit as a prison for the 21st century. It is unfit for the prisoners, for the staff and for the community living around it. I am not the only person saying that; the same statement has been made by the minister, by the committee in its report and by the current governor of Low Moss.
For the benefit of those members who have not been to Low Moss prison, I should inform the chamber of just how dire the situation is there. Low Moss is a category C prison for 300 prisoners. Those 300 prisoners are housed in ex-RAF wooden huts, in dormitories of up to 30 inmates at a time, and we know the problems that result from that kind of accommodation. Since the beginning of the year, we have had at least half a dozen incidents of disorder at Low Moss prison, the most recent of which was only a few weeks ago.
It is not just disorder that the dormitory accommodation gives rise to. There are also problems with drug taking. If there is a prisoner who wants to come off drugs living with 29 other inmates who may not want to, it is much more difficult for that prisoner to make that decision and stay with it. We heard that in the evidence that the governor gave to the Justice 1 Committee. There are also problems with the bullying and intimidation of prisoners in a dormitory situation.
One of the things that struck me on a recent visit to Low Moss was that, although the education unit is excellent and its dedicated staff work hard with inmates, inmates can take part in the education programme only when they are in the education unit itself. It is much more difficult to find the peace and quiet to get on with work in a dormitory where there are 29 other inmates. That is something else that the Justice 1 Committee heard in evidence from the governor.
The Justice 1 Committee said in its report
"that the current prison is untenable",
and the current governor, Ian Bannatyne, said in evidence:
"My belief is that morale is not low in the sense that it is affecting staff performance, but there is a degree of uncertainty that will not be removed until decisions on the proposals in the estates review are made."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 30 April 2002; c 3512.]
Given those statements, I would like to ask the minister to tell us when Low Moss, as it exists today, will be closing. We keep hearing that it is past its sell-by date and we need to know what that sell-by date is, so that we know that the minister is making provision for the future.
When he is reviewing the future, the minister must recognise that a private prison on that site is not an option. I say that because the record from Kilmarnock private prison is quite clear. We have seen the records on staffing, on drug taking and on lack of rehabilitation. Stewart Stevenson has quoted from parliamentary answers to tell us about the lack of innovation for staff there.
Will Fiona McLeod give way?
She is in the final minute of her speech, Mr Fitzpatrick.
I am sorry that I cannot take Brian Fitzpatrick's intervention.
Given Kilmarnock's record, we must be clear that a private prison on the Low Moss site is not the answer. We do not want to replace an inadequate building with an inadequate service. In closing, I stress that the community wants to know when the closing date for Low Moss will be and what the future is for that site.
I shall try to limit my comments to two locations: Peterhead and Craiginches. After listening to some parts of today's debate, I feel that I may also have to raise the issue of what prisons are for. They are not just for public safety, but also for rehabilitation and for putting back into society people who are able to cope. To achieve that, prisons must have the conditions that allow staff to act professionally, in a safe and caring manner.
I welcome the minister's U-turn on longer-term investment in Peterhead. I agree that it is absolutely urgent that he deal with the minor titivations of electricity and slopping out, but we must have long-term commitment and investment. I take umbrage at Richard Simpson's protestations about the numbers. There may be only 300 or so long-term sex offence prisoners in the male population, but if there are 200 or 300 others in the system who require short-term treatment, why not develop Peterhead as a centre for such treatment? Why not develop it further as a constructive means of dealing with that problem within Scotland, as a national centre and not just for long-term prisoners?
I congratulate the people who fought the campaign to save Peterhead. I told them that that was only the first step, and that has been proved right by subsequent comments from the minister. What are the ingredients for investment in public sector services? The answer must be, "Something to invest in." There is a location; a local site is available for a new build prison. There is a community that is willing to host such a prison. There is a prison staff with expertise and skills that are recognised worldwide. For any ministerial decision, those are the major ingredients for investment if we are looking for long-term benefit and commitment.
We must create an environment and culture within which prisoners will be encouraged to respond to treatment. That involves developing the morale of staff and recruiting staff. The staff at Peterhead are underrecruited and there are problems with recruitment, because of a lack of commitment from the minister. We need a clear statement to build morale. That morale will transfer into confidence in that prison and among the prisoners.
Fiona McLeod talked about Kilmarnock as if it was the only place that had problems, but Craiginches has problems too. According to Clive Fairweather's report, there are heroin and cocaine difficulties, and prisoner-on-prisoner assault is worse than at Barlinnie, which has five times the population. The report also lists inadequate induction and many other problems that are not unique to any one prison, but are a fact of life in the Scottish Prison Service, particularly at Craiginches. About a year ago, I paid a private visit there, which I did not publicise. I was appalled at what I saw in that prison. The tension at every level was palpable from the moment I entered, and that cannot be allowed to continue.
The prison was overcrowded and dirty. There were poor buildings that could not cope and poor staff facilities. Staff were willing to run programmes, but it was difficult for them to operate. Clive Fairweather's report made it clear that the prison is in urgent need of attention. Morale is awful. There must be a quick upgrade for the prison to provide some service within the SPS and to be of benefit to people who must go it.
Is it in the minister's heart to understand that if a prison's culture is not right, it will fail the staff and those who are sent to it for correction and punishment? I presume that punishment is part of correction. For prisoners to have their freedom taken away is one thing, but they must come out of prisons capable of being part of society again.
I echo the congratulations that members have offered to the Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, on listening to the deliberations of the Justice 1 Committee. The parliamentary process is tested when there is no consensus. On this occasion, the minister has listened and I speak from personal experience when I say that he has shown ministerial leadership. Sometimes, a minister is strongly advised that they should hold to their original judgment and not listen to a committee. We should congratulate Jim Wallace, particularly on listening to the Justice 1 Committee and on meeting the immediate challenge of dealing with overcrowding.
That prisons are firmly on the public policy agenda in Scotland is also a testament to the Parliament. In the previous century, it was left to churches and voluntary organisations to raise issues that are now the subject of debate in a legislature.
I want to turn to the substance of the report. The committee tried to get to the bottom of enormous cost differences. Why are the public sector and private sector cost differences so large? It is obvious that some differences relate to construction and that some relate to running costs and working practices. However, some relate to and raise the issue of quality of service.
What are prisons for? As members have said, in part, prisons are there to protect the public, but they should also try to reduce the number of people who return to them. Therefore, what prisons are doing to reduce recidivism should be the focus of what happens in the months ahead, not least because decisions that Jim Wallace or future ministers with responsibility for justice must take about how many more prisons are needed will be rooted in our success in reducing recidivism rates. Peter McKinlay summed up the issue in his own inimitable way. He told the committee that
"Prisons are in the people business."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 11 June 2002; c 3877.]
The leadership that Scotland has shown in the past in reducing recidivism—I am thinking of the special unit at Barlinnie, for example—has not continued in recent years as we might have hoped that it would. It is sad that, after 200 years of prison reform, only in 1999, with the establishment of the Parliament, was the first director of rehabilitation appointed. The SPS established its first throughcare centre as late as 1999 and we are still deliberating on whether there should be a further roll-out.
It is encouraging that the Prison Service now embraces a vision of itself as a leader in correctional excellence. If it wants to be a leader in that field, we must know how many prisoners need help, what kind of help they need and what difference it will make. It is slightly disappointing that it will be 2003 before the information technology system that is needed will be there. The earliest roll-out will be in 2004 and it will be 2005 before the data are in place. Jim Wallace will not have a prisoner's dilemma, but a ministerial dilemma. He will have to take decisions about the number of prison places that are needed when the correctional and rehabilitation regime that we hope for is being put in place.
Members of the Justice 1 Committee detect a tension between, on the one hand, those who acknowledge the shortcomings of the past, embrace a reform agenda and try to drive it forward as speedily as possible and, on the other hand, those who are less willing to concede shortcomings and are not committed to driving forward the agenda to reduce recidivism as it needs to be driven forward. We simply ask ministers to be on the side of the reformers, who acknowledge the shortcomings of the past and are happy to embrace a reform agenda. We will avoid having to build extra prison places—which has created such a dilemma in the prison estates review—only by reducing recidivism.
We proceed to closing speeches. Nora Radcliffe has four minutes.
The debate has been good. Members have raised detailed questions, which the minister will wish to answer. Donald Gorrie in particular gave us a timely reminder of wider issues.
I echo what Paul Martin said. Review of the prison estate is about bricks and mortar and the effective use of public funds. Such matters are important. When a person is taken into custody, responsibility for their welfare is taken out of their own hands and passed to the state. That is a heavy responsibility. It is important that outcomes from the review are as right and good as we can make them. Paul Martin also reminded us of the state's responsibility to prison staff.
No one has a monopoly on wisdom and the consultation on the review and the committee's work have been necessary, constructive and effective. As a result of responses to the consultation—I want to highlight the thorough and well-argued report that Aberdeenshire Council submitted and the extremely effective campaign that was mounted by the partners of prison officers at Peterhead—common sense and rational argument have won the retention of a prison at Peterhead. Those who made the case and those who listened and acknowledged the strength of the case should be commended. As a result of the rigorous scrutiny of what might in the past have been just another official document, the proposals have been thoroughly tested and the eventual outcomes—I say eventual, as it is obvious that much more work is to be done—will be much better for such scrutiny.
The debate has been good and largely constructive. I note Donald Gorrie's point that there should be a war against crime, although I am not convinced that the weapons that he is lining up will result in success. I share his view that the performance of Executive ministers has been abysmal, but I would not restrict that criticism purely to the justice team.
The committee report is good. It is welcome, as there has definitely been Executive movement on some issues. The retention of the Peterhead facility is particularly welcome and I once again pay tribute to those who have fought hard to ensure its survival. The Executive has genuinely recognised that there would be potential difficulties in moving the facility, which does a lot of work, to another area of Scotland that might not be as receptive to it. That said, it is clear—and the Executive recognises—that more work is required at Peterhead as a result of the age and condition of the buildings.
The report underlines the tensions that inevitably exist between concepts of private and public prisons—Pauline McNeill was correct to raise that issue. I understand the misgivings that people have and do not think for a moment that the usual Pavlovian response when there is a debate about the private sector and the public sector has been manifest. Some take the view that if the state takes someone's liberty away, the state should deal with the issue of imprisonment—that is an argument.
However, what cannot be gainsaid is that on the basis of value for money the private sector provides a better example of how services can be provided more cheaply. Some of the criticisms of Kilmarnock prison are unfair. There is inconsistency between Stewart Stevenson's interpretation of answers to his questions about Kilmarnock and the report on Kilmarnock by the chief inspector of prisons.
Of course, as Paul Martin rightly underlined, there are many missed opportunities in the estates review. We all know that the end of slopping out is essential. We would have liked more movement along that particular road. I accept that there is no great public sympathy for those who are sent to prison and I do not have much sympathy for them either. However, prisoners should be housed in reasonably sanitary conditions and those are not the case while slopping out continues.
The estates review also failed to address other problems. One of the most serious aspects of the running of our prisons is how drugs appear to be readily available. It would not have been rocket science for us to have used the estates review to address the growing problem of drugs in prisons. If adjustments in the design of prison buildings and how prisons are run could bring about a reduction in drug abuse in prisons, those adjustments would be beneficial.
The estates review also failed to address the potential increase in the number of prisoners. The ministers correctly identified a 28 per cent increase in remand numbers. However, a few weeks ago, the Minister for Justice referred to the reduction in the numbers being imprisoned for the non-payment of fines but did not appear to know why that was the case. The answer is simply that means warrants are not being executed. If they were being executed, the prison population would increase dramatically. Those figures should have been considered. It is also unfortunate that the estates review was not used to ensure that proper statistics are available, particularly on the success or otherwise of rehabilitation schemes.
The Justice 1 Committee is to be congratulated on a comprehensive and thorough report. I am sure that it took much time and effort to produce it. The report has caused some movement and we should be grateful for that at least.
The debate has been mature and has not descended into the petty bickering that sometimes occurs in debates. There will be consensus, if not unanimity, about the outcome. It is disappointing that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton appears to have broken the previous consensus on Kilmarnock—but there we are.
We welcome the development plans that will be put in place for each of the existing prisons. Wearing my constituency hat, I particularly welcome the indication that one will be developed for Peterhead.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time. I have too much to say—sorry.
I want to say a word about the Spencer report. The Deputy Minister for Justice appeared to indicate that he disagreed that there were 450 sex offenders in the system. The Spencer report stands on four key assumptions. The fourth assumption is that about 10 per cent of the prison population are sex offenders, which means that there are 460 sex offenders serving sentences of four years or longer.
I will be delighted to hear from Dr Simpson in his summing up. However, if the minister is to tell us that an assumption on which the Spencer report is based is wrong, there will be wider issues to consider. However, I will wait to hear from Dr Simpson.
On the issue of public versus private sector provision, I will first say something about the staff in both systems. I have met staff in both private and public prisons. I am certain that all the staff in both systems are committed to doing their best. The real issue is whether the staff in a private prison have the capability and the tools—as they do in the public sector—to do their best. For example, Pauline McNeill made a valid point about pensions. The commitment and enthusiasm of people who are working for a pension is much greater than that of those who are not.
It has been asked where the figure of £700 million for the difference between the costs of public and private prisons came from. I understand that the chief executive of the Prison Service was asked that question by the Cabinet and that he replied that he did not know where the difference came from. The ministers might tell us that that informal report is incorrect.
The reality is, however, that the public sector comparator is used in the issue of private versus public. For example, higher rates of staffing in public prisons are assumed for comparison than exist in any prison in the Prison Service. We should also bear in mind the fact that the PricewaterhouseCoopers study was limited because it used numbers provided by the Prison Service that were not audited.
That brings us neatly to the subject of Mr Cameron and the leadership of the SPS. It is important to distinguish between management and leadership. Managers must, of course, be leaders; otherwise staff cannot respond and understand what is required of them. The Prison Service managers might have exercised certain management responsibilities—although when they turn out an estates review that is subject to such widespread criticism, one has to ask questions—but they have abjectly failed in leadership. They have severed effective links with their staff and failed to take staff with them. There have been recent encouraging developments in joint statements. I hope that that continues, but I suspect that that is just sticking a finger in the dyke.
I hear echoes of a 1984 episode of "Yes, Minister" in which the minister and Sir Humphrey had a discussion about who ran the department for which the minister was responsible. Sir Humphrey suggested that the minister was the salesman for the department. The Minister for Justice must decide whether he wants to exercise effective leadership and be more than simply a salesman for the management's ideas. The latter role would dig him deep into trouble.
I support the minister's right to change his mind and I congratulate him on doing so; it was a tribute to the consultation process on prisons. However, the minister cannot have it both ways. He said in his opening remarks today that the original proposals were correct. He must reflect on that.
In his speech when he came to office, the First Minister said that public services were at the heart of his concerns. That is entirely appropriate. When thinking about private versus public, we must consider that public service is not simply about doing what no one else wants to do, but about contributing value through the ethos and commitment of the people in the public service.
I call the Deputy Minister for Justice, Dr Richard Simpson, to close for the Executive. We saved a couple of minutes earlier in the round, so I will give you eight minutes, minister.
Overall, the debate has been good. However, it is clear that if Parliament is to be effective we must have processes by which it is accepted that the Executive's decisions are not always totally right or totally wrong, but are balanced decisions that are made on the evidence that is presented to us. It must also be accepted that when we consult, which we have done more than any other Government has, we have an opportunity to examine any fresh evidence.
Of course, some of the fresh evidence came through the Justice 1 Committee, but some came from consultation responses to the Executive, particularly from Labour MSPs. Stewart Stevenson and Alex Salmond submitted evidence on Peterhead to the consultation, but otherwise only Labour members submitted evidence.
It is clear that if decisions are balanced, we should be able to make different decisions on the basis of new evidence If members return to the speeches that were made during the debate on Peterhead—prior to the statement and the debate on the prison estates review—by Jim Wallace and by me as a back bencher, they will see that we said exactly the same thing. We said that if it could not be guaranteed that the closure of the prison would not disrupt the Peterhead programmes, that would be an important consideration, because the programmes offer the best chance of treating serious sex offenders. During the consultation it became clear that building a new prison or shifting prisoners to a central-belt prison would disrupt programmes to an extent that would not be helpful.
I want to deal with the issue of sex offenders. Michael Matheson and Stewart Stevenson raised the matter, but they have not read the Spencer report correctly. There are 650 convictions of sex offenders annually. About 5,000 offences are committed annually. There are about 300 long-term offenders. There are thought to be another 300 or so short-term offenders in the system. There are problems of identification, because the offence that is listed is the first or most serious offence on the charge sheet. That is not always a sex offence. That is why the Spencer report indicated that sex offenders may constitute 10 per cent of the total prison population. However, not all sex offenders are long-term offenders. The majority of sex offenders convicted annually are short-term offenders. Out of the 650 offenders who are convicted annually, only about 50 end up in Peterhead.
Since I was appointed as a minister, my main concern has been to follow—
I will not give way. Neither Christine Grahame nor Stewart Stevenson allowed me to intervene to correct them. Had they accepted an intervention from me earlier, I could have shortened my speech considerably.
My concern in setting up the Spencer committee was to deal with short-term offenders, who form a substantial proportion of offenders. To do that, we must have effective programmes in place. We have established such programmes at Barlinnie, Polmont and elsewhere. We need to consider whether those should be brought together in a single-purpose prison in the central belt that will deal with short-term sex offenders. Throughcare and links to the community are of crucial importance. The rehabilitation of long-term prisoners at the end of their sentences can take place in the central belt.
Will the minister give way?
No. I do not have time to deal with all the points that have been made.
The Spencer report is now out to consultation. I hope that people will respond to it. We need to have a serious debate about short-term sex offenders, who may progress to more serious offending.
The other theme of today's debate has been that prison should be used only for those for whom it is appropriate and that there should be alternatives to custody. I look forward to seeing the committee's work on that issue, which will develop alongside ours. The alternatives to custody that the Executive has produced are greater in number and type than those produced by any previous Administration. Drugs courts and drug treatment and testing orders are but two examples of those. We have funded local authorities to carry out bail supervision. Arrest referral and diversion—measures to which Donald Gorrie referred—are in place. If they are used by the courts, they will be effective.
Bill Aitken and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, among others, referred to fine default, which is a problem. We are considering implementing on a pilot basis the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 for dealing with fine default. We may want to re-examine that issue. At present, the daily population of prisons includes only 60 prisoners who have been imprisoned for fine default. That figure does not reflect the weight of work that has been done on the issue. There are 7,000 cases of fine default a year, involving around 5,000 people.
By introducing tagging and by piloting time-out centres for women—we will consider that for men in due course—we are trying to provide alternatives to custody. That is reflected in the number of prisoners. The only group of convicted prisoners whose numbers have increased substantially is long-term adult prisoners. The number of short-term adult prisoners has been stable since 1997. The number of short-term young offenders is down by 23 per cent. The number of long-term young offenders is down by 15 per cent.
We are overwhelmed by problems with remand. Bill Aitken, among others, referred to the issue of drugs. Through the contract with Cranstoun Drug Services Scotland, we have produced throughcare that will take the number of people whose needs in relation to drugs are assessed from 200—the figure at the time of the establishment of the Parliament—to a target figure of 6,000. That is a sizeable attempt to assess the drugs problem with the individuals concerned and to develop programmes that are effective.
The other issue that I want to address is that of private versus public provision. Certain members often attempt to demonise Kilmarnock prison. I welcome Stewart Stevenson's praise today of staff at Kilmarnock. Frankly, some of the remarks that members have made over the past few years on this issue have been outrageous. Occasionally members need to seek a balanced approach and not be partisan. When dealing with the argument of public versus private provision, it is inappropriate to demonise Kilmarnock prison.
I want to respond to another comment by Stewart Stevenson. Last year or the year before, inspectorate reports identified 24 items of best practice in Scotland. Twelve of those came from Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock is not all bad, but it is not all good. I wish that members would not always say that everything about it is bad. We need to strike a balance in these matters.
Let us re-examine the proposals. Originally we proposed the establishment of two or three private prisons. Our proposal was based on the fact that prisoner numbers are difficult to project. We are taking risks by saying—as Jim Wallace indicated in his statement—that we have decided to opt for only two prisons. One of those will be used initially for remand prisoners, who are not convicted and whose rights are largely removed on conviction. We have said that we will opt for a private build, public operate prison. No matter what is said about the French system, the experiment in Chile and the attempt in Goa, that has never been done before.
Two years ago, the introduction of new working arrangements led to unofficial strikes. We have moved to a position where the trade union and the SPS were able jointly to welcome the minister's statement. They have signed a compact to work together in a genuine partnership to try to make the public prison sector work. In backing that, we have made the largest-ever investment in the public prison sector, to modernise the estate.
I will conclude, because I know that I am well over time. Thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer. I will come back to the members who spoke about Craiginches prison. We will continue to examine the problems there, about which I am genuinely concerned.
I thank the ministers and MSPs who have contributed to today's debate. The Justice 1 Committee's report on the prison estates review was one of the most important reports that the committee has ever produced. The committee was almost unanimous in its reaction to the review, although inevitably different members emphasised the importance of different issues raised by it.
Those concerns were shared by many other MSPs from all parties, members of the public, organisations such as Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending, prison visitors, prison officers' families, prison chaplains and others, many of whom wrote directly to individual committee members. The committee felt that it was speaking for a large section of the Scottish people. The Executive was right to take account of our views.
Various concerns were raised, but they related to three main areas. First, people were worried about the privatisation of the Scottish Prison Service, either because they had philosophical aversion to private prisons or because they were not convinced that the model of Kilmarnock would deliver the kind of prison regime that we want in Scotland in the 21st century, either for prisoners or for staff.
I endorse what Pauline McNeill said about pay and conditions and pensions. However, as Richard Simpson said, we should not demonise Kilmarnock. There is both good and bad there, just as there is both good and bad practice in the public sector.
We believe that the review missed an opportunity to factor in the role of alternatives to custody and the role that the development of better rehabilitation programmes and throughcare could play in keeping people out of prison or preventing them from reoffending.
I come to the proposed closure of Peterhead prison and the implications that that would have for the successful delivery of the STOP 2000 programme. That was bound up with the economic impact that closure would have on Peterhead and resulted in intense lobbying, not only by prison officers' partners but by, I believe, the whole of Aberdeenshire. I pay particular tribute to the work that Stewart Stevenson did on that. The Peterhead debate hinged on whether the buildings were no longer fit for purpose or whether they could be adapted; whether the STOP 2000 programme would be jeopardised by closure; whether the prisoners and, crucially, their families were content to remain so far from the central belt; and whether throughcare could be delivered to central-belt prisoners—a point that Paul Martin emphasised.
The evidence to the committee raised serious doubts as to whether the SPS had conducted any real assessment of the state of the buildings. It seemed that the decision to close the prison was taken first and the arguments that were employed to justify it were made later.
We are all aware of the degradation of slopping out for both prisoners and prison officers. In Peterhead it seemed that it was possible to manage that because of the nature of the prisoners. I am glad that the Executive has reconsidered Peterhead and has acknowledged that prison officers, prisoners and prisoners' families are content with the present location and that throughcare can continue to be delivered to central-belt prisoners by moving them nearer home towards the end of their sentence.
I welcome the minister's confirmation of the refurbishment of the cells at Peterhead and the negotiations with the staff about overnight toileting. I acknowledge that the Executive cannot give 100-year guarantees on the future of Peterhead and I am content with what has been proposed.
When the minister was talking about the disruption to providing the services at Peterhead he mentioned new build. I tried to intervene at that point. Did the member take it from what the minister said that new build is not on the agenda any more?
I believe that new build is not on the agenda at the moment. I believe that there will be a review in another 10 years' time or so. I am sure that by then, if not before, we will have more indications from the minister.
There was talk of the disparity between public and private prisons costs. Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the SPS, blamed that on the inefficiency of the public sector. We found that to be an astonishing admission. We imagined that part of his job description would be to address such inefficiencies rather than to use them as an excuse for a privatisation agenda. Tied up with that is the relationship between management and the work force and the fact that there have been poor industrial relations in the Prison Service. I believe that past difficulties were factored into the financial equation when we were told that the running costs of the public sector caused the cost differential, not only when comparing totally public provision with totally private provision but when assessing the comparative costs of a PPP, such as the one that Stewart Stevenson proposed for Peterhead.
I welcome the fact that the Executive has now challenged the SPS to bid for the provision of a new prison in partnership with a private building provider or a voluntary or not-for-profit organisation. I hope that that will be pursued seriously and that it represents a commitment from the Executive, rather than just window-dressing.
The Prison Officers Association Scotland has insisted that it is ready to work flexibly. The Executive has told the SPS that it has to improve its management practices. I hope that the POAS is left in no doubt that it has to deliver if the public sector is to be able to bid to run one of the proposed new prisons. I want assurances from the Executive that the SPS will be left in no doubt that there has to be a sea change in its management practices, that it has to make a real commitment to making the public sector work and that it realises that it is accountable to the Parliament, as Michael Matheson said. So far, we have not been too impressed. Witness the continuing dispute at Polmont over the closure of the staff social club and the seeming lack of urgency shown by the SPS when it gave evidence to the Justice 1 Committee this week on the effectiveness of prison work and rehabilitation programmes.
As Wendy Alexander and others have said, the crux of the matter is that prison is not just about locking people up. Prisoners must come out with employable skills, ways of managing aggression and the confidence that they will be supported in the community. Mindless work is not good enough and sometimes there is no work at all. We need proper rehabilitation programmes that are delivered mainly by prison officers who have built up a relationship with the prisoners. We need work that will result in recognised qualifications, rather than just passing the time.
We are aware of good work that is being done in some prisons, notably Saughton prison, but I am concerned about how slowly those good initiatives are being rolled out elsewhere. Part of the justification for the three new prisons was the projected rise in prisoner numbers. There is no question but that prisoners who are guilty of serious crimes and who are a danger to the public must have custodial sentences. We must adequately fund and promote alternatives to custody, which are not a soft option but which statistics show prevent more people from reoffending and, I hope, prevent petty criminals from becoming serious criminals later on. I appreciate what Donald Gorrie said about support for young people who are at risk.
The Justice 1 Committee is now turning its attention to examining alternatives to custody. We acknowledge that the Executive has many initiatives in that area. We are particularly concerned to discover why those initiatives are not being used by judges when they seem to many of those who gave evidence to be an answer to recidivism and some aspects of the prison population problem.
In conclusion, I thank the committee members, the many people who wrote to us and all those who gave evidence. I particularly thank the team of clerks whose commitment went above and beyond the call of duty. I commend our report to the Parliament. I believe that it has already influenced considerably the Executive's thinking. I hope that I can look forward to a modern prison estate where there are good industrial relations, an end to overcrowding and slopping out, the introduction of meaningful work experience and the development of rehabilitation programmes and throughcare. All that will lead to a decline in reoffending and a drop in the prison population. I realise that that cannot be achieved overnight, but I acknowledge the record investment from the Executive and I hope that it will be used well.
I make a special plea for local prisons in the north, such as Aberdeen and Inverness. We have heard from David Davidson and Richard Lochhead on Craiginches and the chief inspector of prisons has already raised concerns that Inverness prison might go the same way. I beg the Executive to take note of that. Excuse me for ending on a constituency note, but I am extremely concerned about it and I have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the Executive about it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether you could clarify whether the timing for Executive responses to committee reports is covered by standing orders or whether it is a matter of protocol. I note that rule 14.1.5 in the standing orders, on the publication of documents, says that the business bulletin will indicate when publications are available. My understanding from the debate—I apologise for only having watched it from my office—is that the Executive responded to the Justice 1 Committee's very important report at only half-past 5 last night.
I wish to clarify whether the Justice 1 Committee's report is a report in itself or whether it is a response to the Executive's consultation on the prison estates review. My understanding is that it is the former rather than the latter. I want to clarify whether the ministerial statement on the Executive's consultation on the prison estates review was not in itself a sufficient reply to the Justice 1 Committee's report. Is it the case that a full response by the Executive to the report was needed, given that the report raised a great many points, and that the response should not have come at only half-past 5 last night?
I am grateful for the notice that was given of the point of order, although the point of order that has been raised is much more wide-ranging than the one to which I was briefed to respond. Strictly speaking it is not a matter for the standing orders, as Fiona Hyslop had clearly worked out by the time that she raised the verbal point of order. It is clear that there is a non-binding protocol that requires the Executive to provide a response within two months of the publication of committee reports. It is clear that in this case the Executive did not do so. I am unable to respond to the points in Ms Hyslop's point of order that are essentially points for the Executive. The Minister for Justice is in a position to raise a point of order that might clarify the matter.
I want to respond in the same way in which I made my opening remarks. The Presiding Officer is right that this is a matter of protocol. It is obvious that the substance of the issues that the Justice 1 Committee report addressed relates to the prison estates review. Anyone would acknowledge that there were a considerable number of responses to the consultation on the prison estates review. It was right and proper that priority was given to analysing those responses and preparing a statement to Parliament, which I made on 5 September, when I took questions for an hour.
I accept that that was not a full response to the Justice 1 Committee's report, but I hope that the Parliament will accept that our priorities were right and that we spent a considerable amount of both ministers' and officials' time analysing the responses to the consultation and devising the statement and the policy that was announced in it. I believe that the spirit in which we operated was one of trying to provide Parliament with a statement of our intentions, many of which reflected points that were raised in the committee's report. As I indicated in my speech, on numerous occasions during the committee's preparation of its report, my officials, the SPS and I co-operated with the committee in order to provide it with the information that would help it to produce its report.
On a point of order.
Let me respond to the minister's comments first.
The minutiae of such matters go beyond the authority of the chair, but it is clear from the protocol that a procedure is laid down to cover the circumstances in which the Executive may wish to take longer to respond, or to respond in a way that is different from that set out in the protocol. I understand that that procedure was not followed in this case, and the minister may wish to consider how the Executive's response was dealt with, in order to clear the ground for doing things better in future.
Are there further points of order?
I received the Executive's response only a few minutes before the debate started. I would welcome a bit more notice in future.
We can probably secure agreement on that point.