The next item of business is consideration of motion S4M-11985, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, which is the draft Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014. I call Joe FitzPatrick to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014 [draft] be approved.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]
Two members have requested to speak against the motion.
16:51
I rise to oppose the SSI, which, on the basis of the evidence that was given to the Justice Committee, I firmly believe will not result in the establishment of a superior system for prison monitoring.
Although the Scottish Government acknowledges that there are serious doubts about the proposed new system and whether it will be compliant with the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—OPCAT—it is nonetheless proceeding with it merely because it does not want any further delays. OPCAT’s express purpose is to establish a system of unannounced and unrestricted visits to all places where persons are deprived of their liberty. To that end, state parties must guarantee the functional independence of the national preventive mechanisms as well as the independence of their personnel. As the visiting committees were resourced by the Scottish Prison Service, they lacked functional independence and were, therefore, not compliant with OPCAT.
The problem could easily have been solved by moving the visiting committees’ functions to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The committees, all of which were staffed by dedicated volunteers whose visits were all unannounced, could then have become a part of the United Kingdom’s national preventative mechanism—a view that was endorsed by Dr James McManus in his evidence to the Justice Committee. Instead, there has been a four-year delay, during which the Government’s position has shifted dramatically away from its seeming acceptance and approval of the Coyle review recommendations.
The system that is outlined in the order will erode the impartiality of independent prison monitors in at least two distinct ways. First, a rota for the IPM visiting arrangements must be provided and agreed by both the prison monitoring co-ordinator and the prison governor. Additional IPM visits can be undertaken only with the agreement of the co-ordinator, and only if time and resources permit will there then be room for unannounced visits. Secondly, the internal complaints process will task monitors with the responsibility of assisting prisoners with the internal SPS complaints process, thereby creating a perception among prisoners that monitors are, in essence, part of the SPS and not independent.
Although there was room for improvement on the current visiting committees, if the draft order is approved by Parliament this evening an inferior system will be put in place. Put simply, it is more important to get the independent monitoring of prisons right than it is to rush the order through. That is why I move against the SSI.
16:53
The Justice Committee’s report on the SSI is laden with provisos and caveats—in my view, far too many for comfort. Regular rigorous independent scrutiny of our prisons is essential in order to ensure that proper standards of care and decency are maintained. The proposals do not ensure that monitors will be truly independent; instead, independent prison monitors will sit in a hierarchy and their work will be directed by salaried co-ordinators who will, in turn, be overseen by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland.
Further compromising their independence, the monitors will have to undertake routine visits in accordance with a rota that must be agreed with the prison governor. There are significant concerns about the capacity of monitors to undertake an expanded range of duties, and the right to take time off from employment in order to undertake monitoring will be removed. There is also concern about the Government’s reluctance to commit to a minimum number of monitors.
The order also fails to protect the confidentiality of prisoners who wish to raise concerns with monitors.
I, too, want the system to be compliant with OPCAT sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, the shortcomings of the order, which have been highlighted by the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments, the Howard League Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, must be heeded. Professor Andrew Coyle, who reviewed the Government’s initial ill-judged plans, has concluded with “considerable regret” that this latest effort “needs further amendment”.
Too often, we are asked to rely on the cabinet secretary’s willingness to monitor and respond to legislative shortcomings rather than to sort them out first. Despite a number of attempts by the Government to get it right, members are being invited to approve an order that we know to be deficient. Perhaps one last iteration with a new minister at the helm will bring a resolution that we can all support. Scottish Liberal Democrats will therefore oppose the order.
16:55
The order that Parliament is being asked to approve has been the subject of significant consultation. It has also been examined by the Justice Committee, and I am grateful to the committee for its detailed consideration of the matter.
The order meets our obligations under OPCAT and the national preventive mechanism, which the current system of prison visiting committees does not. It establishes an independent monitoring service for Scottish prisons, ensures that all aspects of prisons will be fully and independently monitored, and provides a system in which best practice can readily be identified and improvements made in relation to conditions in prisons and the treatment of prisoners.
I believe that Parliament should approve the order for a number of critical reasons. The new system will deliver improved outcomes for prisoners and wider society. The current system of prison visiting committees is not as effective or efficient as it could be. There are significant inconsistencies across individual visiting committees, there is a lack of accountability and there is no ability to look at trends or to share findings. The new system will introduce effective leadership and governance arrangements for monitoring that will address those areas.
The independence of independent prison monitors is secured through the oversight of the chief inspector of prisons. In addition, independent prison monitors will be given powers to visit a prison without prior notice at any time, to access any part of the prison, to speak to any prisoner privately, and to investigate any matter that a prisoner brings to them.
The new system provides for visits to be undertaken in three ways. It provides for them to be arranged through a rota that will be agreed by the independent prison monitor, the prison monitoring co-ordinator and the prison governor, or to be arranged between the IPM and the PMC. It also provides for them to take place at the discretion of the IPM alone. Any concerns that wholly unannounced visits may no longer take place are totally unfounded. It is also wrong to suggest that unannounced visits will be infrequent.
The reason for allowing for visits to be agreed with the governor is that that will allow the governor to raise specific issues that may be discussed and shared with the IPM, or to highlight to prisoners the fact that an IPM will be available on a certain day. The reason for some visits being agreed with the PMC is to ensure co-ordination and the appropriate frequency of visits. A combination of announced and unannounced visits is consistent with the practice of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the principles of OPCAT.
A key element of the draft order is that it will require IPMs to visit each prison weekly. That will ensure that what is going on in individual establishments across the country will be monitored with regular frequency. In addition, the system will be subject to regular review.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I know that much progress was made during the discussions with the Justice Committee. Could he repeat the assurance that he gave us that if, on review, there are found to be problems with the order, he would be prepared to return to it and amend it if necessary?
Cabinet secretary, you are in your last minute.
The member makes a good point, because the order requires the chief inspector of prisons to set up an advisory group to keep the effectiveness of monitoring under review. Membership of the advisory group will be at the discretion of the chief inspector, who has indicated that it should have an independent chair and include the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Of course, if there was any indication that there were difficulties with the present approach or deficiencies in it, the Government would be more than happy to consider such matters when they were highlighted to us.
I make it clear that the Government is committed to delivering the best outcomes for prisoners, to tackling inequalities where they exist and to meeting our obligations under OPCAT. The order that the Parliament is being asked to approve today was approved by the Justice Committee by seven votes to one. The order will reform independent monitoring of our prisons and deliver better outcomes for prisoners.
That concludes the debate on the draft Public Services Reform (Inspection and Monitoring of Prisons) (Scotland) Order 2014. The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
Previous
Protecting Public ServicesNext
Decision Time