Scottish Prison Service
The next item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-2545, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the Scottish Prison Service, and on two amendments to that motion.
There is some justification for describing the Scottish Prison Service as the cinderella service in the criminal justice system. Inmates and employees are out of sight and it is a little too easy also to keep them out of mind.
There are three main purposes of imprisonment: humane punishment, rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public. Each of those is absolutely vital to society in the short, medium and long terms. All aspects of our Prison Service should be measured against the achievement of those fundamental aims. Conditions for staff and inmates should be assessed so that we may know whether they contribute to or hinder those three aims.
Let us consider some aspects of Scotland's prisons. First, there is overcrowding, which, in my view, weakens the system's ability to deliver on all three aims. The basic decency of conditions in prisons is a mark of a civilised society. The overcrowding of prisoners is inhumane and impedes work on the rehabilitation of offenders. In 1998, the Scottish Office minister with responsibility for justice, Henry McLeish, said:
"Overcrowding … means that we cannot spend enough time with individual prisoners. That is why there will be further reforms in the Prison Service to overcome the problem."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 July 1998; Vol 316, c 895.]
That was just one of many hollow assurances about the prison system. Despite promises from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the prison population has continued to rise. This year, we locked up more people than ever before. The peak figure for this year so far is 6,388, which was recorded on 29 June. That is the highest number of prisoners in Scotland ever recorded. Despite previous assurances, the situation is getting worse, not better.
I ask Roseanna Cunningham to cast her mind back to when she was convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Does she recall the Minister for Justice assuring us that the number of prisoners was about to fall, and that he would budget accordingly? Is Roseanna Cunningham able to say what has gone wrong since then, or could she ask the Minister for Justice to do so?
The debate should be about the Minister for Justice taking some responsibility for what has, clearly, gone badly wrong. I remember the constant and consistent assurances from the Minister for Justice and from the chief executive of the SPS that things were going to get better. It was always said that they would get better, but they have simply got worse.
Only recently, the Minister for Justice, replying to me at question time, rather sarcastically washed his hands of responsibility. He said:
"the number of people in prisons is not entirely within the Executive's remit, given that the sheriffs who sentence them are not ministers."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; c 4382.]
If that is the case, presumably the minister knew that it was nonsense for the Liberal Democrat party to promise in its 1999 manifesto that:
"We will cut prison numbers by encouraging greater use of non-custodial sentences, where offenders pose no risk to the public."
How has the minister fulfilled that promise? Fine defaulters continue to represent more than 40 per cent of new prisoner receptions in Scotland. The Scottish Government now seems to regard its commitment to cut the number of prisoners as a distant aspiration. That is fed, no doubt, by a cynicism that assumes that there will be no public outcry at the Government's failure. Nowhere is that failure more evident than in Cornton Vale.
It might be difficult for her, but will Roseanna Cunningham acknowledge the considerable extension of the range of non-custodial options available to sheriffs since 1999, and that those provide an important part of the Executive's strategy on criminal justice?
I speak to sheriffs on a number of occasions. Many of them tell me that, although there may be plenty of alternatives on paper, those alternatives are not as available to them in practice as might be assumed. They say that they often feel that their hands are tied, despite what appears to be more of an option. The minister ought to address that, instead of asking me about it.
The report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland on Cornton Vale calls for a reduction in the number of prisoners. Clive Fairweather, the chief inspector, has repeatedly gone on record with his concerns about the number of women being jailed in Scotland. His report of 1998, "Women Offenders—A Safer Way", showed that most women sent to prison should not be there. The Government accepted the report's recommendations that the number of women in prison should be cut sharply. Since 1998, the number of women in prison has risen to a record level. It is becoming the case that assurances from the Government ought to be treated as promises that exactly the opposite is going to happen.
The only prison solely for women, Cornton Vale, has been seriously overcrowded this year, and the figures for females under 21 are climbing particularly steeply.
Will the member go on to cover some of the positive points that Clive Fairweather made about Cornton Vale in his report?
I am well aware of the positive points that Clive Fairweather has made, but I am pointing out his consistent call for a cut in the number of prisoners, his consistent concern about the number of women being jailed and the consistent failure to address that issue.
I recognise that the member has a strong local interest in this matter and has done a great deal for Cornton Vale. However, that should not distract us from the fact that over the years there has been a consistent failure on the issue of women in prison. We already know that 82 per cent of women in prison are the victims of some kind of abuse. However, the figures for the number of women in prison are rising at a time when the chief inspector of prisons is warning:
"what has not changed is the condition of the women arriving at the prison gates. If anything their condition is even worse and they are getting younger and younger."
According to the chief inspector, Cornton Vale, Scotland's only women's prison, is acting as
"a casualty clearing station, psychiatric ward and … an addictions clinic".
I do not think that it is the proper purpose of a prison to act as any of those things.
Mr Fairweather has called for the number of women jailed to be cut by half. For several years it has been the Government's stated policy to reduce the number of prisoners in Cornton Vale. The Minister for Justice has failed miserably to deliver on that policy. Women who are being jailed are probably women who are most at risk of suicide. Indeed, in recent weeks there have been two more suicides. Warning bells are ringing loud and clear and even the minister should hear them. However, there is precious little evidence that that is the case.
Neither were warning bells heard in connection with the degrading practice of slopping out, which hinders the achievement of progress and what should be the aims of the Prison Service. As long as slopping out exists, Scotland's prisons will not provide a basic standard of decency. In 1999, we were told that there was a plan to end slopping out by 2005. Then £13 million was taken from the prison budget, and bang went the plan. However, ending slopping out would save staff time, expense and, possibly, legal costs. Improved conditions for both prisoners and staff would provide a better environment for the rehabilitation of offenders.
The conditions in prisons have a big effect on staff morale, which is at an all-time low despite the complacency of the Executive amendment. The past few years have seen a collapse in staff confidence in SPS management. That has been caused by management intransigence in negotiations on terms and conditions, management cost-cutting through driving down pay and the constant review of the service with a mind to privatisation. Prison staff should be properly valued for the tough job that they do. If the Scottish Prison Service does not treat its staff properly and pay them decently, they will leave.
Prisons are now big business, dominated by global corporations. Those corporations have a track record of forcing down staff pay and conditions and of treating prisoners poorly. They make their money through paying low wages and employing fewer staff, or through financial manipulation at the taxpayer's expense. Privatisation is being used by SPS management to threaten its staff in a way that should be unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable when new Labour was promising no more private prisons, but that was back in the days before the party was elected. Now that Labour is the Government, that has become just one more broken promise.
Privatisation is happening in other ways as well. The privatisation of the general practitioners service in prisons was pushed through without proper consultation. The SPS uses the excuse of commercial confidentiality to avoid revealing the cost of staffing the new service. If privatisation has led to savings for the SPS—because of the secrecy surrounding it, there is no way of knowing whether it has—it has also led to poorer conditions for medical staff and has placed prisoners at risk. The kind of privatisation to which I refer is being kept more secret than the SPS agreement with Her Majesty's Prison Kilmarnock.
In its efforts to contract out social work, the SPS management has shown itself to be a bullying and, ultimately, incompetent negotiator. It appears to have been driven by ideology and the desire to push costs on to local authorities. The policy initiative appears to have come from within the SPS and ministers appear to have been left in the dark until too late. The results of that initiative in Edinburgh have been the loss of an experienced social work unit, harm to vital links with social work in the community, higher costs for the SPS and damage to relations with a long-standing service provider.
I know that the Minister for Justice will spend some time talking about the prison estates review. That has been something of a saga, allowing the minister to spend a considerable amount of his time answering questions about the prison system by not answering questions. The review was announced in autumn 1999 and started in December 1999. It was completed in December 2000 and submitted to the minister. In January this year the minister promised to publish the review, but we are still waiting for it. What is the minister trying to hide? Why have we not seen the review before now? It is extraordinary that so much time has been allowed to pass and that an important review should have been left sitting on the shelf despite the fact that questions are continually being asked about it. Continued uncertainty about the estates review has been another factor in bringing about a collapse in staff morale. However, I suppose that this has been a useful exercise in allowing the minister to avoid what little appears to be left of his responsibilities to the public for the prison system.
That lack of accountability is one of the true scandals of what has been allowed to happen. The minister continually tells us that he is responsible for policy and that the SPS is responsible for operational decisions. The extent to which subjects can be designated operational is interesting. No doubt that is convenient for the minister. Of the 185 written parliamentary questions about prisons that were lodged between November 2000 and November 2001, only 27 were answered directly by the minister. Tony Cameron was allowed to decide that staff bullying at Kilmarnock was a matter solely for the prison operating company. What is more, many of his answers seem designed deliberately to mislead. That makes it difficult for the Parliament to hold anyone to account for what is happening in Scotland's prisons. Cameron is answerable to the minister, who is answerable to us, but the minister will not answer.
My views about the chief executive of the SPS remain the same as they were when, earlier this year, I lodged a motion of no confidence in him. Unfortunately, by extension I must say that I have no confidence in the minister's stewardship of the Scottish Prison Service, as he appears to have washed his hands of all problems in the service.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Executive's failure to bring forward a strategy to address the increasing overcrowding within Scottish prisons and further notes that morale amongst Scottish Prison Service staff is at rock bottom as the result of (a) the deterioration of industrial relations, (b) the continued threat of further privatisation within the Scottish Prison Service, (c) the culture of secrecy within the service and (d) the continued and unacceptable delay in the publication of the Estates Review.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish Prison Service and to respond to the—to put it kindly—predictable speech by Roseanna Cunningham. At least she had the good grace to admit in response to my intervention that the Executive has rolled out a considerable number of alternatives to custody. More of those are explained in the white paper that I launched earlier this morning.
Will the minister give way?
I ask the member to hold on. Roseanna Cunningham also had the good grace to admit in response to an intervention from Sylvia Jackson that the report on Cornton Vale by the chief inspector of prisons praised the considerable efforts that have been made to improve the regime there.
In return, will the minister have the good grace to say that drugs courts, one of the principal alternatives to custody that he has proposed, are an idea that he got from the SNP?
There is some arrogance in Roseanna Cunningham's question, but drugs courts are certainly an idea worth considering. We are sometimes accused of not listening, but I accept that the SNP has made a useful contribution to the debate and I am sure that it will prove to have been worth while. That also gives the lie to Roseanna Cunningham's suggestion that we have done nothing to create alternatives to custody. We have introduced drug treatment and testing orders and extended electronic tagging, to name just two initiatives.
The Scottish Prison Service has a crucial role to play—
Will the minister give way?
Phil Gallie should be patient.
The Scottish Prison Service has a crucial role to play in the criminal justice system. Over the past 12 months or so, the Parliament and its committees have—rightly—devoted a considerable amount of time to discussing SPS issues. The suggestion that there is a lack of accountability does not bear examination. Not only have parliamentary questions been answered, but the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service has appeared before the justice committees. I understand that the people who run Kilmarnock prison appeared before the Justice 1 Committee. We also have debates such as this one. It is stretching things a bit to say that there is a lack of accountability.
Will the minister give way?
Mr Gallie was first.
A few moments ago the minister mentioned electronic tagging. Ms Cunningham claimed credit for the idea of drugs courts. Will the minister acknowledge that the Conservative party came up with the idea of electronic tagging when it was in government and that he opposed it?
We ensured that initially electronic tagging was confined to a pilot scheme, which has now been evaluated. I am prepared to accept that electronic tagging has proved its worth and am willing for it to be extended. Indeed, electronic tagging will be extended beyond the limited circumstances in which it would have been used under the Conservatives' previous proposals.
Will the minister acknowledge that, although Tony Cameron has made himself available to the Justice 1 Committee, his answers cannot always be relied on to reflect the true facts of any situation?
I know what issue Stewart Stevenson is referring to. Tony Cameron clarified the position on that very quickly and no one is accusing him of showing bad faith in the evidence that he gave to the Justice 1 Committee. That would be a very serious accusation and I refute it completely.
The SPS has launched its vision statement of "correctional excellence", which commits the service to helping to reduce reoffending and to maximise its contribution to the Executive's commitment to a safer Scotland. Such a commitment necessitates significant changes within the SPS, and much has been done to achieve those changes. Staff attendance patterns have been significantly changed for the first time in 50 years in order to better match staff to business needs.
Roseanna Cunningham failed to mention the investment of more than £35 million in capital projects. Two new house blocks are being built, one at HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and the other at HM Prison Edinburgh, which will create around 500 places with access to night sanitation for prisoners and improved working conditions for staff. She also failed to mention the recent investment of £16 million in HM Prison Barlinnie, of which £3 million is being spent on B hall, which, when completed in spring 2002, will eliminate slopping out for the remand population in that prison.
The SPS continues to make positive progress in addressing drug dependency, which continues to be a major issue for Scotland's prisons. About eight out of 10 prisoners test positive for drugs when they enter prison. That figure reflects increased levels of drug misuse in the community. It is a significant achievement of and a tribute to the Prison Service that the number of those who test positive in prisons remains low—fewer than three out of 10 test positive, in comparison with the eight or nine out of 10 who test positive on entering prison.
Reducing the availability of drugs in prison is a major task, but one that does not solve the real issues of tackling the causes of drug and alcohol misuse, providing necessary treatment and helping prisoners to lead constructive lives after release. The SPS is one of the major providers of drug treatment in Scotland. Record numbers of prisoners are accessing treatment—more than 7,600 last year, in comparison with 1,650 as recently as 1997-98.
The SPS is introducing new measures to make it possible, for the first time, for significant numbers of remand and short-term prisoners to be assisted in the difficult period around release. Those measures will help to reduce drug-related deaths among recently liberated prisoners, thereby playing a part in the Executive's social inclusion agenda. Scotland is leading Europe in this area, and, over the past couple of years, the Deputy Minister for Justice, Dr Richard Simpson, has been closely involved in developing the care model that is now being taken forward.
Will the minister give way?
I ask Richard Lochhead to bear with me.
The SPS continues to make progress in developing new accredited programmes to address the offending behaviour of prisoners. That action is at the core of the correctional agenda. Roseanna Cunningham was absolutely right to say that prisons are not just about locking people away from society. The aim must be to help individuals to address their offending behaviour and to return them to society less likely to reoffend.
rose—
rose—
I think that Richard Lochhead was first.
No. You are in your last minute, minister.
Oh, help. I have been too generous in accepting interventions.
My next point is important, because the motion makes reference to the state of morale and to industrial relations in the Prison Service. Today, I am able to announce that the SPS, working in partnership with the Prison Officers Association Scotland, the Public and Commercial Services Union and Prospect, has reached agreement on the terms of a voluntary industrial relations agreement. In particular, that means that the POA Scotland has agreed not to induce, support or authorise industrial action. In exchange, there will be access to independent arbitration for dispute resolution. The voluntary industrial relations agreement, which will be legally binding on the SPS and on the POA Scotland, will give both the Scottish ministers and the POA Scotland the power to seek remedy for breaches through the courts.
In February of this year, the Home Secretary announced that, when parliamentary time permits, he intends to replace with a reserve power section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which makes it unlawful to incite officers of a prison to take industrial action. Until that happens, the Scottish ministers intend to use the provisions of the voluntary industrial relations agreement, instead of those in section 127.
However, it is clearly understood by all parties that section 127 would be used in the event of a breakdown of the agreement. In the light of that agreement, it is clear that industrial relations in the SPS are far from deteriorating, although I accept that there is a considerable way to go to achieve full partnership working.
With regard to the reference that was made to the culture of secrecy, it is important that I say that work on the estates review has been prepared for ministers. The review is not yet in the public domain, but, as I said in answer to a question on 29 November, our intention had been to publish the consultation before the end of the year. Given the ministerial changes that have taken place, it is only right that the proposals, and the details that go with them, should be brought before the new Cabinet. I plan to launch the consultation early in the new year.
I did not realise that my time was quite so short, Presiding Officer. No doubt the debate will reflect other issues and Richard Simpson will pick up a number of those points at the end of the debate. I hope that we will be able to take an objective view and recognise that both the staff and the management of the SPS in the past year have achieved much—regrettably, the motion does not give credit to those achievements.
Many challenging issues lie ahead and I believe that everyone is playing a constructive part in creating a more effective and efficient Prison Service. That is important in the pursuit of a safer Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-2545.2, to leave out from the first "notes" to end and insert:
"congratulates the staff and management of the Scottish Prison Service on their good work in maintaining secure custody and good order in Scotland's penal establishments; welcomes the partnership between management and staff to improve industrial relations through the voluntary industrial relations agreement; welcomes the prison service's commitment to collaborating on an increasingly transparent basis with statutory and voluntary agencies to provide effective rehabilitation and through care, aimed at reducing re-offending; notes that investment has been made in upgrading the prison estate, but that more must be done; to that end, welcomes the Executive's open approach in planning to consult on the Prison Estates Review early in the new year, and agrees that work to upgrade the estate must deliver prisons capable of providing sufficient humane and secure accommodation while delivering value for money."
I welcome the minister's conversion to tagging. The Conservatives are very much in favour of the use of tagging as an additional tool in the fight against crime, as long as it does not become an instrument for the Executive to use in emptying our prisons. We believe that an eagle eye should be kept on participants in the scheme. If they breach the terms of their order, they should be returned to prison. The terms of the curfew order should be enforced and, in due course, the effectiveness of the scheme in reducing reoffending should be reviewed.
It is right that we should be debating prisons this morning, as a number of outstanding matters require urgent action.
It is essential that the estates review be published. Henry McLeish, the then First Minister, said on 14 December 2000—almost a year ago—that the Administration expected
"to be able to publish the review in the new year".—[Official Report, 14 December 2000; Vol 9, c 1077.]
His expectation has not resulted in delivery, which is having an adverse effect on morale.
On 11 September, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, Mr Clive Fairweather, made the following remarkable statement:
"Last year, I mentioned two overriding concerns. First, there was a pervasive atmosphere of uncertainty among staff. That was created by the series of unprecedented prison closures, the estates review and hints of further closure or privatisation. I said that staff morale in a number of prisons was as low as I had seen it in six years. A year later, uncertainty about what central management is likely to propose in the estates review is still overarching."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 11 September 2001; c 2629.]
It would be in the best interests of the Scottish Prison Service to resolve that matter with all possible speed.
It follows that we expect decisions to be made in the national interest. In that connection, I strongly support the continued existence of HMP Peterhead. On 10 October, BBC News Online reported that the Executive was set to close the prison
"as part of a cost-cutting drive".
Such a move would mean that the special unit for sexual offenders, which is doing a very good job, would have to close. Mr Clive Fairweather, who is a distinguished and impartial source, commented that the closure of Peterhead would see public safety "gravely compromised".
When Stuart Campbell, programmes manager at Peterhead, gave evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, he stated that 162 prisoners had been liberated since the programme commenced in 1993. Of those prisoners, only six
"have been reconvicted of a sexual offence and four have been recalled because of a breach of licence conditions."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 13 November 2001; c 2752.]
That means that reoffending has not arisen in the overwhelming majority of cases and that the judgment of Clive Fairweather was well founded.
We believe that further prison closures will be contrary to the national interest, as there is no guarantee that there would be a sufficiency of prison places to accommodate the disposals of the courts.
On 30 August 2001, Clive Fairweather published his annual report, in which he stated that the consequence of a reduction in capacity, coinciding with a growth in prison numbers, is a possible return to chronic overcrowding. Five out of 17 establishments are now overcrowded, whereas only two were overcrowded at the same time last year. In particular, Barlinnie is running at 29 per cent over capacity. In such circumstances, the Executive will be irresponsible if it engages in large-scale prison closures, which could lead to a substantial increase in overcrowding and pave the way for discontent and disruption.
The consequence of overcrowding is that prisoners are liable to be locked up on their own for longer, with less emphasis on training and less concentration on addressing offending behaviour. Boredom could become the order of the day, which, in turn, could lead to heightened tension. That is highly undesirable and if the minister goes down that path he does so at his own peril.
It will be of no satisfaction to us if the minister makes the wrong decisions, because the prison officers and the community would bear the adverse consequences. Tremendous steps have been taken in recent years with the development of the STOP programme for sexual offenders and of educational programmes that address offending behaviour, anger management and cognitive skills.
Those have all been developed since previous discontents and their worth has been recognised throughout the globe as well as in Scotland. Experts on sex offending, such as Dr Marshall, regard Peterhead as one of the three top providers in the world for such treatment.
Slopping out currently takes place in about one quarter of prisoner places in Scotland. The practice is degrading and inhumane and should be phased out immediately. The Executive's approach, which would apparently not resolve the issue before 2005 at the earliest, is much too leisurely and could be subject to a legal challenge by prisoners under human rights legislation. The Executive takes the view that there are no votes in prisons; it is wrong, because prison officers have votes. If conditions were improved for prisoners, pressures on prison officers would be reduced. That is true for slopping out, for which extra officers must be readily available to deal with the arrangements first thing in the morning. Frankly, slopping out is by modern standards an abomination.
The Executive should not look for ways to take funds out of the prison estate but give this subject the priority that it deserves.
Please wind up.
We are acutely dissatisfied with the Administration's policy on prisons. The prison population is growing while the Executive appears intent on closing prisons. As a result, there are now about 6,250 prisoners in 5,800 prisoner places. We should provide a network of prisons that meets the needs of the justice system and protects the public. The prison estates review is long overdue. While the minister drags his heels, overcrowding worsens, slopping out remains, staff morale deteriorates and general confidence declines. In the forthcoming weeks, I hope that the minister will avoid making what could turn out to be a potentially disastrous decision.
I move amendment S1M-2545.1, to leave out from "as the result of" to end and insert:
"and calls upon the Executive to publish the Estates Review, to end slopping out in Scottish prisons and to provide sufficient places in prison to accommodate the decisions of the courts."
It may have been my mistake that I did not spell out that speeches should be no longer than five minutes.
When the Parliament first met, one of the first issues that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee dealt with was the report on the Prison Service by the chief inspector of prisons. Devolution of power to the Parliament lifted the lid on the Prison Service and showed us what the public would rather not know: overcrowded Victorian buildings without internal sanitation. Such buildings are often no longer fit for purpose and sometimes struggle to deliver the new rehabilitation programmes that are necessary if offenders are to have a future in ordinary society.
Today's subject for debate is important. I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the issues that the SNP has raised. The SNP motion—like Roseanna Cunningham's speech, I am sorry to say—is negative and divisive and offers no clear indication of what the SNP would have done differently in the past two years or what the SNP proposes to do now. It must be depressing and frustrating for people listening to the debate to hear a catalogue of accusations without being given any alternatives.
I have visited Longriggend, Barlinnie and Porterfield in Inverness and have seen for myself the conditions for prisoners and staff. Longriggend is still closed and nobody mourns its passing. Remand prisoners will soon be housed in a refurbished hall in Barlinnie. I have seen the conditions in the old remand hall—the lack of sanitation and the dirty bedding. However, I have also seen Barlinnie's refurbished hall, its rehabilitation programme for short-sentence sex offenders and Inverness prison's excellent induction programme and education service.
Will Maureen Macmillan join me in finding the pledges on Barlinnie that the Minister for Justice has given inadequate? He referred to ending slopping out only for remand prisoners, but the majority of prisoners are not on remand. At the moment, Barlinnie has only 75 toilets for more than 850 men. In the main, that situation will continue if slopping out is ended only for remand prisoners. We want that inhumanity to be ended for everyone.
Everyone in the chamber will agree with Dorothy-Grace Elder that slopping out should be ended as quickly as possible.
Over the past year, there has been a steady improvement in the conditions for prisoners and in the quality of rehabilitation and educational programmes. As Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned, conditions are not satisfactory and no Labour member would claim that they were. However, for the SNP simply to say that everything is terrible without proposing any alternatives is disappointing. The SNP minimises the real effort that the staff and management of the Prison Service have made.
Maureen Macmillan referred to Peterhead prison. Is she concerned by the Executive's failure to produce the prison estates review? Will she assure us that she will back the retention of the sex offenders unit in Peterhead?
I actually referred to Porterfield prison, which is in Inverness. I shall speak about Peterhead shortly.
I want to deal with the motion's main points. First, there can be no doubt that morale has been low. Change is never easy to cope with and mistakes were made in the way that change was managed. I hope that such mistakes will not be repeated. Many Labour members lobbied successfully for disputes to be brought to arbitration, which the minister has just mentioned. SNP members would have crowed with glee if strikes had gone ahead. The SNP uses the Prison Service for its own political ends, which is why it is stirring the pot today.
The SNP has also raised the spectre of privatisation. There is no question of the Prison Service being privatised but, given the litany of problems that the SNP has mentioned, how would the SNP put in the necessary investment to achieve the improvements that we all want to see? The SNP has failed to answer that question. There are legitimate concerns about private prisons, especially over whether private prisons can deliver the quality of programmes that we require. I hope that the Executive will robustly examine the alternatives for financing new prisons and, in particular, examine the comparators that are used to judge between private and public prisons.
Overcrowding is another important issue that we take seriously. Overcrowding is unacceptable. We urgently need new prisons, but we also need to examine how we deal with minor offenders. Too many petty criminals and fine defaulters and too many women end up in jail even though other disposals are available. We must look at why those disposals are not used. Short jail sentences do nothing to rehabilitate people: jail becomes a habit and a revolving door.
Rehabilitation is an essential part of the work of the Scottish Prison Service. As has been mentioned by other speakers, Peterhead prison offers a prime example of rehabilitation and I support its work. The excellence of its programme for sex offenders is well known. Prison officers feel that to have a prison solely dedicated to the rehabilitation of sex offenders is the best way to help such prisoners. The Peterhead facility is very important and I share the concerns about its future. I hope that the Executive will ensure that that good example of rehabilitation continues in Peterhead. It would be a severe blow if the team who deliver the programme were broken up.
We have a tremendous task ahead of us to modernise the prison estate. In the light of concerns that have been expressed about future provision, the Executive was right to take time to have the options thoroughly examined, although I appreciate the anxiety that the delay has caused. The debate will continue when the draft proposals are published, which will happen, I am now told, early in the new year.
As it will be a while before the service can settle back to normality, I urge that there should be understanding of staff concerns. It is imperative that we have a modern prison estate with well-trained staff, who are delivering rehabilitation programmes that will make a difference to offenders. Such programmes need to be followed by support and throughcare for offenders. Let us use the debate to discuss a positive vision for the future rather than to complain and blame, which the SNP is so good at doing.
We move to open debate. Due to our starting late and overrunning, I ask speakers to stick to three minutes so that I can call everyone.
I thought that you quite liked me, Presiding Officer, but you have immediately cut my time to three minutes.
It is unjust of Maureen Macmillan to criticise the attitude of members of my party towards the Prison Service. Our criticism of the minister has been robust, but that is our purpose. Rather than waste my time with that, I want to turn my attention to Cornton Vale, which was addressed by my colleague.
Cornton Vale is in a serious position. Since 1998, there has been a great dropping-off from the promises that were made to deal with women offenders. We have had several years of quiet. I commend the role that has been played by Kate Donegan and her medical officer. One is inclined to make a link between the transfer of those two ladies elsewhere and the recent suicides of Frances Carvell and Michelle McElvar. I regret that I must say that, but I believe that the link has to be made.
Between April and November this year, Cornton Vale was 10 per cent overcrowded. The peak occurred in August, when it was 29 per cent overcrowded. Overcrowding has a bad impact for all kinds of reasons. It means that there is too much pressure on the staff and there is an increase in lock-ups, which causes pressure on inmates in a prison population that is already highly vulnerable. Whoever one speaks to—be they the chief inspector of prisons, the National Association of Prison Visitors or the former governor—all say that most of the women in Cornton Vale are sad not bad.
I want to quote something that Kate Donegan told the Justice and Home Affairs Committee when it met in Stirling last year. Ms Donegan had been in the Prison Service for a long time, but this is what she said about when she became governor of Cornton Vale:
"I must say that I was completely unprepared for the physical, mental and emotional condition of the majority of the women in the prison. I found appalling damage, mostly as a consequence of chronic poly-drug abuse, and a variety of mental health problems related to those addictions. I found a population that was characterised by social exclusion, ill health, poor educational attainment, lack of employment skills … Many of the women were persistent petty offenders and, along with those on remand, were finding the combination of drug withdrawal, uncertainty about the future and separation from friends and family an almost intolerable burden."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 6 March 2000; c 881.]
Those are the people whom we are locking up for petty crimes—for failure to pay fines for prostitution, or for other small matters. We are disrupting families; we are not dealing with the problems of women offenders. They are sad not bad.
I will quote again from the same committee meeting. Every time I hear these words, it brings to mind just how dreadful it is to imprison 70 to 80 per cent of those women. When asked by Lyndsay McIntosh whether prison was a proper place for two babies who were there, Ms Donegan answered:
"I think that, paradoxically, babies in Cornton Vale get a fabulous start in life. They have more mothers than you can shake a stick at."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 6 March 2000; c 892.]
Those are the people whom we are imprisoning in Cornton Vale.
The Justice 1 Committee has commissioned research into sentencing and into attitudes to sentencing and custody. I say this on behalf of members of all parties: perhaps, minister, with a great deal of pushing from the justice committees, we will stop raiding the justice budgets—which has been happening—and turn to real solutions for vulnerable women who should never have been imprisoned in the first place and who should be helped to lead positive and fulfilling lives with their children.
I congratulate the SNP on its motion. It is right to highlight overcrowding. Between 1992 and 1997, the average prison population was 5,500. Since Labour came to power—here in the Lab-Lib Executive—the average has gone up to more than 6,000. What has happened in that time? There have been three major prison closures. I suggest that that is going in the wrong direction.
I accept that the Minister for Justice believed that things would go in the other direction. He has already acknowledged that he claimed that prison numbers would go down. There is an element of failure in the fact that they have not.
The SNP is right to highlight problems to do with staff relationships in the Prison Service. There are a number of reasons for those problems. Perhaps one reason is the way in which Tony Cameron came in and—following instructions, I believe—tried to bulldoze through change when he did not really understand the prison system.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time, Alex—I am sorry.
That is a pity.
However, I am congratulating the SNP.
A fundamental reason for dissatisfaction among prison staff is the failure of the Executive to produce the prison estates review. That is shameful. The Executive must get a grip on that and produce the review in the very near future. We were promised it 18 months ago, but the Executive has still not got it on the table. That is not good enough for the Parliament and it is certainly not good enough for the prison officers.
On other issues, I may differ from the SNP. I step back from its arguments on privatisation.
I know the SNP arguments on the situation at Kilmarnock, but I regard it as a model prison, designed to suit the circumstances. At the prison, 92 per cent of the prisoners are working, or are in education or training, for 35 hours a week. We should be aiming for that in all our prisons. Kilmarnock must be commended. It has very experienced staff. I acknowledge that staff payments are not quite as high as payments in the Scottish Prison Service, but conditions of service are improving all the time, and that should be welcomed.
I disagree with some of the comments that have been made on prison sentences. If people commit a crime, they must be prepared to spend the time in prison that that crime merits. We cannot take short cuts; the justice system demands that people are punished and that, at the same time, the public are protected. That is what the Prison Service is there for. However, it is unfortunate that, sometimes, people who some people feel do not deserve it should have to spend time in prison.
I agree that there are problems within the Scottish Prison Service and that there is an urgent need for solutions. Yes, we must find a solution to overcrowding where it exists; yes, we must ensure that prisoners are punished through the withdrawal of their freedom rather than through the withdrawal of their basic human rights; and yes, we must ensure that our Prison Service offers the opportunity for rehabilitation rather than for an education in crime.
Ms Cunningham's motion is more concerned with attacking the Scottish Executive than with working with the Executive to find solutions. It is more concerned with creating divisions than with building partnerships.
Prison officers whom I have met in HM Prison Shotts and in the national induction centre are dedicated public servants who work in what are often dangerous and stressful environments. As in other public services, the staff are at the heart of the service. It is the staff and not the buildings that offer the opportunity for rehabilitation. It is through the efforts of the staff that public safety is enhanced.
The nationalists' motion fails to mention the importance of rehabilitation and education in our Prison Service. Victor Hugo said:
"He who opens a school door, closes a prison."
Prisons can and should play a role in reducing crime levels. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that every effort is made to provide prisoners with the skills and confidence that they will need to re-enter society. I urge the Scottish Executive to continue to prioritise programmes that are designed to reduce recidivism.
Incarceration should be the last resort. It is right and proper that those who have been proven to pose a threat to individuals and society should be prevented from doing so. It is right that they should lose their freedom and that society should be protected. However, it is also true that many people are still inappropriately incarcerated. Tackling offending behaviour—within the community and at an early stage—is not easy, but it is definitely potentially the best option.
I will await the findings of the estates review before coming to any firm conclusions on the state of our prisons, but I think that the focus of our efforts must be on providing a service that offers best value to the public. That means not only providing the cheapest service but ensuring that the quality of that service is maintained and enhanced. That must be the basis on which the estates review is judged.
I will conclude by quoting from "The Ballad of Reading Gaol", in which Oscar Wilde summed up all that was wrong with 19th and 20th century prisons:
"The vilest deeds like poison weeds
Bloom well in prison-air:
It is only what is good in Man
That wastes and withers there".
Prisons in the 21st century must not become places where hope and potential waste and wither. They must be places where the opportunity for change and rehabilitation is offered. To achieve that, we must have buildings that are fit for purpose and staff who are well motivated and valued.
It would be remiss of me not to welcome the support that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton offered for Peterhead prison and the kind remarks that Maureen Macmillan made. I would also like to mention Richard Simpson, who will be a valuable addition to the front bench with his knowledge and experience; I know that he has a track record of supporting the work of Peterhead prison.
Continuing in that vein, I would like to welcome something, if not everything, in the minister's amendment. At the end of the amendment, the minister says:
"work to upgrade the estate must deliver prisons capable of providing sufficient humane and secure accommodation while delivering value for money."
Great stuff. Clearly and unambiguously, that gives paramouncy to what prisons do over what prisons cost. After the prevarication, distortions and errors—I use that word out of charity—in the evidence given by the head of the Scottish Prison Service to the Justice 1 Committee on 23 October, it is clear that ministers are not going to heed Cameron's single-minded focus on cost and are going to take a broader and more balanced view.
Running a public service like a business, as Tony Cameron has often said that he wishes to do, is to fail to understand that the dividends that we want from the service are societal, rather than fiscal. We want protection for society, punishment for the offender and reform of their future behaviour.
When, earlier this year, prison staff struck for the first time in 61 years, it reflected their lack of morale in the present circumstances. The Prison Service—I use that word advisedly—is in a state of some disarray because of the delays in taking essential decisions. Is there other evidence of morale problems? Yes. Ian Gunn, the governor of Peterhead prison, in answer to a committee question on 13 November on the delay in the estates review, said:
"The lack of a decision is draining for staff".—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 13 November 2001; c. 2753.]
To be fair, I should add that he went on to say that he did not think that it had affected morale.
However, the conversations that I have had with prison officers tell a very different story. When officers see a world-class facility kept in a state of uncertainty for an extended period and when the special skills that they have built up over seven years are devalued by their chief executive, who has made a statement to a parliamentary committee that was subsequently shown to have no basis in fact, it is no wonder that morale has plummeted.
I will provide a little illustration of the numbers that Lord James gave us—of the 162 graduates of Peterhead prison's rehabilitation programme, only six have returned. Tony Cameron should think on this: given that it costs £26,000 per year to keep someone in prison, that represents a saving of £2.5 million every year from Peterhead prison's success in reducing recidivism.
I support the SNP motion.
I want to make a couple of points about the SNP motion, which seems to be rather contradictory. It demands that the Scottish Executive produce a strategy on overcrowding in the Scottish Prison Service before the estates review has even been published. Let us remember the purpose of the estates review, which is to identify the likely pressures on the Prison Service estate over the next 10 years and to suggest a series of options to deal with those pressures. The review is examining how to renew, upgrade and improve our prisons to tackle the real problems of overcrowding. It will also tackle the need to improve the conditions for staff in the prisons and will include plans for ending the practice of slopping out in prisons such as Peterhead and Barlinnie. It would therefore be quite wrong for the Scottish Executive to take action before the review is published, as the SNP motion seems to suggest it should.
The estates review will tell us not only what is needed but, most important, it will demonstrate accurately the cost of the various options for funding the upgrading of the prison estate. That information is vital in coming to a decision on which option delivers the best value for the public purse. The SNP has already ruled out one option—the use of further private sector involvement, regardless of whether the report demonstrates that that option might be better value for money for the Scottish public purse. At least on the funding issues, the SNP is quite consistent—blank cheques every time. Every week, in every debate, the SNP makes commitments and promises. No matter how many times the SNP is asked where the money is to come from to fund the proposals, how it will be spent and which budget will be cut to fund it, we never get an answer.
The Liberal-Labour coalition is tackling the problems of the Prison Service head on. We will take hard decisions based on the estates review on how to provide a Prison Service fit for the 21st century. Most important, we will say how and where the money will come from to fund that vision.
Recently, I made a couple of visits to Craiginches prison in Aberdeen and met Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Prison Service—I assure members that that set the alarm bells ringing. Tony Cameron handed me a wee card that outlined the goals of the Scottish Prison Service. One of those goals referred to "delivering effective prisoner opportunities". I tell the minister that at Craiginches such opportunities are few and far between, because of the staff situation.
I received some figures this morning from Craiginches prison that show that the prison is 30 per cent overcrowded—perhaps it is the most overcrowded in Scotland—and 10 per cent understaffed. There are two vacancies for staff. Every time new officers are recruited for Craiginches, more resign. There are currently 12 people off sick. That is a terrible combination for staff working in the prison.
When I visited the prison, I was told that one hall held 130 prisoners, but that only 40 got to do any work outwith their cells on any one day. The remaining 90 prisoners in their cells are looked after by four staff. I tell the minister that the prisoners are becoming aware of the staff shortages and overcrowding. I do not have to tell him how dangerous that is. It also has implications for rehabilitation work. I remind him that in Aberdeen 80 per cent of crime in the city is drug related and that 80 per cent of the prisoners test positive for drugs on admission. There is a clear link between drug use and crime in the city. If we are to break the link, it is imperative that there should be a rehabilitation programme in place at Craiginches prison. In his recent report, to which Roseanna Cunningham and others referred, the chief inspector pointed to the fact that addiction staff at the prison spend a lot of time on escort duty.
One of the other goals that the card referred to was that Scottish prison staff are respected by the nation for their professionalism—according to the chief executive of the SPS. Prison officers are respected for the work that they do by the general public. After all, they are being asked to look after the most dangerous people in our society—in many circumstances, for an appalling wage in appalling working conditions. However, they do not get any respect from management. When I met Tony Cameron, he told me that low morale was not a concept that he could recognise. He said that he would recognise the concept of low morale only if every prison officer at Craiginches left their job. He wants all the prison officers to resign before he will recognise any symptoms of low morale. Does the minister think that that is acceptable?
There is a new governor at Craiginches. I hope that that moves things forward. The new governor will need the support of management in Edinburgh and of the minister. The SNP is not confident that that support will be forthcoming.
My speech will concentrate on Cornton Vale and women offenders. I accept some of the comments made by Roseanna Cunningham about the recent and on-going problems, but she did not give a balanced view. The SNP seems to be incapable of providing a balanced view on the subject of prisons.
I have visited Cornton Vale twice since the two recent and regrettable suicides. I know that overcrowding is an immediate problem. I would like to ask the deputy minister to comment on progress to resolve that issue, be it new buildings or new structures for management of prisoners. What negotiations has he had with the new governor, Stephen Swan?
In the longer term, various proposals have been made in the Parliament, most notably about alternatives to prison for those women who do not present a real risk to the public and who often need extensive support to deal with a spectrum of complex needs relating to housing, education, training, drugs and alcohol. Will the deputy minister also give details of developments to promote alternatives? I am thinking of time-out centres and other appropriate measures. Will he also comment on the appropriateness of the multidisciplinary approach of the drugs courts, where professionals from the legal, medical, and social services come together to address the complex issues faced by those with drug problems? Can the same support that is provided by the drugs courts not be given to women offenders who are looking for alternatives to prison?
Many professionals and volunteers—many of whom are local to Stirling—who work with women offenders have suggested that other changes would have a significant impact. First, social inquiry reports should be provided on all women before they are sentenced in court. Secondly, unduly long prison sentences for breaches of supervised attendance orders should be curtailed.
In launching the criminal justice bill white paper today, we announced that we are going to change the sentencing arrangements for those who breach supervised attendance orders. We will substantially shorten those sentences, which should improve the take-up of those orders.
I should add that that exchange was not staged.
Thirdly, a court escort service, which has been proposed, could recruit, train and accredit volunteers to assist in getting women to court so that supervised attendance orders are not breached. I ask the minister to consider a trial of such a service.
Fourthly, there should be more research on the use of community service orders and such orders should be implemented on a trial basis.
Members will know that there is no open prison for women in Scotland. The present governor of Cornton Vale, Stephen Swan—who was not mentioned by any SNP member—is trying to develop independent-living units at the prison to help women to come to terms with life after prison. I ask the Deputy Minister for Justice to comment on that.
Finally, down south, an organisation called Payback works closely with the media on good stories about prison to educate the public on the need for rehabilitation and on its various forms.
I will concentrate my remarks on Scotland's first, and I hope last, private prison—Bowhouse in Kilmarnock. I have 10 points to make about Bowhouse and the problems surrounding it. I will do my best to make those points in the three minutes available to me.
The first point is about secrecy and confidentiality. I find it ironic that the minister who sets himself up as the champion of freedom of information presides over one of the most secretive and illiberal prison management regimes in western Europe. When one asks a question about HM Prison Kilmarnock, the answer from the minister is, "That is not my responsibility. Write to Tony Cameron, the chief executive." When one writes to Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, he says, "That is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of Premier Prison Services Ltd." When one writes to Premier Prison Services Ltd, it uses the excuse of commercial confidentiality. However, Premier Prison Services Ltd is spending taxpayers' money, albeit on a contractual basis in the private sector rather than on a spend basis in the public sector. If the minister wants to be remembered as someone who believes in freedom of information, let him do something about making sure that Parliament gets proper access to the information about the operation of the prison in Kilmarnock.
I shall give the minister some facts about the operation of the prison in Kilmarnock. We heard a lot of ideological nonsense from Phil Gallie about the benefits of privatisation. However, Phil Gallie—I am glad that he is back in the chamber—did not tell us that, according to the chief inspector of prisons, a prisoner is four times more likely to be assaulted by another prisoner in Bowhouse than in any other prison in Scotland. Phil failed to mention another fact about that privatised prison—"Phil failed to mention" sounds quite well. That is that, under its contract, the prison undertakes a custodial role only, as the chief executive has confirmed. The prison has no remit for the rehabilitation or reform of prisoners.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you confirm that each speaker has only three minutes? That is why I could not make all the points that I wanted to make in favour of HM Prison Kilmarnock.
That is not a point of order. We all understood the circumstances. I give Mr Neil another half minute.
I hoped that Mr Gallie's intervention would have got me another minute.
My third or fourth point—or is it my fifth?—is on comments made by Clive Fairweather. He told the Justice 1 Committee that he could not deny that he was suspicious that the assault figures for Kilmarnock are being deliberately fiddled. We are not sure whether they are being fiddled by Premier Prison Services Ltd or by the management of the Scottish Prison Service, but we know that the chief inspector thinks that they are being fiddled. That is on top of the figures for assaults on other prisoners.
Mr Gallie did not tell us about the profits that will be made from the public purse at Kilmarnock over 25 years—
Mr Neil, we take time off for good behaviour in the chamber.
I have given several reasons—I will publish the others tomorrow—why privatisation is the worst thing that could happen to the Prison Service in Scotland.
That concludes the open session. I thank all the speakers. We are now back on track. I call Donald Gorrie to wind up for the Liberal Democrats.
I have deserted my habitual seat at the back—although not my principles—for two reasons. First, I want to give comradely but not uncritical support to two ministers for whom I have a high regard. Secondly, I want to ensure that SNP members can see me. In a previous debate in which I spoke, they did not notice me sitting at the back. That is a striking example of political short-sightedness.
The SNP is right to raise this issue. The Scottish Prison Service is a major problem and we are not yet dealing with it as well as we should. However, I hope that the Executive will not be overly defensive, because the SNP has overstated its case. Under successive Governments, society has not invested properly in prison accommodation, as that has not been politically sexy. To say that slightly undermines Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's excellent speech, as the Tories are also guilty. We have to put that underinvestment right as fast as we can, although that will take a long time. However, there are other things that we could do to help.
First, the ministers must talk seriously to the sheriffs about alternatives to custody. If, as Jim Wallace said, there is a problem with facilities—the facilities exist in theory but not in practice—we must do something about that. However, if the problem is the sheriffs' mindset, we must do something about that. My visits to prisons have shown me that short sentences are a waste of time and money for everyone concerned. We have to develop alternatives to custody.
My next point is that prisons should be judged largely on their reoffending rates. They would then put real effort into their education programmes and reduce the amount of reoffending. In that way, we will reduce the number of people in prisons.
An underlying issue, which was more clearly illustrated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority saga, is how Governments and elected people deal with appointed, stand-alone agencies. The Scottish Prison Service is not in the same bad state as the SQA, but it clearly has problems. There is an issue as to how far ministers should interfere if they do not feel that an organisation is being well run. Undoubtedly, morale is a big issue and that reflects on the management.
My final point is that, when we decide the public versus private funding question, we need solid and robust figures. I know that one of the reasons for the delay of the estates review is that there has been another survey of the figures. However, we have to be absolutely sure that everything has been properly counted before we can come to as honest a decision as possible on what is the best value for money; we must ensure that we have not made that decision using faulty figures.
Apart from the issue of private prisons, which Alex Neil agonised against, a number of themes have run through the debate: overcrowding, prison officers' morale and women in prison. Those themes probably encapsulate the argument fairly.
I will deal first with overcrowding, which is a matter that should concern us all. Overcrowding results in unsatisfactory and, in some cases, insanitary conditions. It also means that certain things are not done. Because prisoners are locked in their cells for an excessive amount of time, the attention that might have been paid to the rehabilitation process is greatly diminished. Overcrowding also has an inhibiting effect on the courts and sentencing. That, in itself, can be undesirable.
Overcrowding has arisen because the Executive has not reacted to the fact that prisons are being closed while prison numbers are not falling significantly. It is inevitable that that would lead to difficulties, which the Executive should have addressed.
A number of members, including Phil Gallie and Richard Lochhead, raised the important question of prison officers' morale. Members will have seen the recent survey of prison officers' attitudes to their jobs. The results of the survey will lead to universal concern, as it is clear that job satisfaction is at an all time low among those who have a vital role to play in our judicial and rehabilitation process. That situation must be addressed.
A number of members spoke about women in prison. It is relevant and pertinent that that issue should have been raised. All of us will be deeply concerned at the suicides at Cornton Vale. Although I have no wish to pre-empt the findings of any fatal accident inquiry that might be held, we have to look at how that institution addresses drug withdrawal symptoms. There is also a case for examining the number of women in prison. Although I would not say that women should be treated differently from other offenders, the number of women who end up in Cornton Vale on the basis of means warrants is of particular concern. That must be addressed. However, there needs to be a basic recognition that women commit more serious crimes than was previously the case. Prison disposal must be an option.
I found Jim Wallace's speech depressingly complacent, although he raised some relevant issues. Drugs are the most important issue of all for the Prison Service. Action must be taken to ensure that people in prison do not have access to drugs; quite clearly, they have access at present. At the same time, those who are released must be given greater support. When the Social Justice Committee visited Barlinnie, we saw one unit containing prisoners who had volunteered to be drugs free. What happens to those prisoners, who seemed genuinely committed to staying drugs free, after they leave prison? Will they be tapped on the bus as they go home? Will they be left open to the depredations of drug pushers in their own areas? Such prisoners get little support. I appreciate that that issue is not entirely in the minister's remit, but the Executive must address it.
A number of issues have arisen this morning, but sufficient time has not been given to the debate. I am sure that, in the not-too-distant future, the issues will be revisited.
Presiding Officer, would you tell me how much time I have, please?
You have five minutes, minister.
Five minutes is not long enough to do justice to what is an important subject. It is regrettable that the SNP has made a bad habit of holding short debates in anticipation of the publication of the—admittedly delayed—prison estates review. Although subsequent SNP speakers made helpful points, the SNP's opening speaker produced a catalogue of woes—she said that everything was disastrous. Her approach was wholly negative. SNP members then made the vague and uncosted promise that they would change everything. The nationalist position is clear: no private prisons—the public sector is the answer. Alex Neil tried, with his 10 points, to make that clear. If I have time, I will return to that issue.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have time.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, say that we should not close any prisons, that the private sector is wonderful and that the public sector is a real problem. We are clear about the SNP and Conservative positions. As Donald Gorrie said, our position is that we want a prison estate that is best value. If we have delayed the publication of the report, that is regrettable, but it is because we want robust figures that will allow us to demonstrate the best way forward.
The estates review is important. We have about 6,000 places and 6,000 prisoners, but we have empty spaces in low-security prisons and, as Richard Lochhead pointed out, overcrowding in Craiginches and other places. That is unacceptable. We need new designs to replace the old, out-of-date estate and new correctional facilities that will provide the sort of care and rehabilitation to which many members have referred. We believe that the prison estates review, which we will publish, will give us an opportunity to have a robust debate in the chamber and to take the matter forward.
Slopping out is unacceptable. There should be acknowledgement at least of the refurbishment of Barlinnie, which means that, from March, remand prisoners will not have to slop out. I was there last Monday and I know that that will be an important advance. However, as the housing block is very old, the situation is still unacceptable. We have spent £5 million, although we may demolish the block in the long term. It was important to move towards ending slopping out and that is what we are doing, although not with the speed that members would wish.
Sylvia Jackson, Christine Grahame and Roseanna Cunningham spoke about Cornton Vale, where there are about 260 prisoners in a facility that can take 230 prisoners. I met Stephen Swan at the women offenders group and talked to him about various matters. I will reply in some detail to the issues raised by Sylvia Jackson. Among other things, there are concerns about redesign of the facility. The women offenders group, which I chair, will produce its report shortly. It has considered the issues and will take forward the time-out facility that was referred to.
Let me list some of the measures that have been taken: arrest referral; diversion orders; supervision orders, which we are modifying to improve their uptake; tagging; restricted liberty orders; drug treatment orders; and drug courts, which we have just launched. All those measures are designed to take people out of custodial sentences. Although the situation at Cornton Vale is difficult, only two prisoners are in there for fine default. The number of people received into prison for fine default has gone down from 10,770 in 1997 to 7,700 last year. We are moving in the right direction and I accept that we should put in custody only those people for whom that is absolutely necessary.
We have introduced transitional care, which means that for 12 weeks after prisoners are released they will continue to have the support of the Prison Service and its partners. The partners are important, because the SNP motion mentions the culture of secrecy. If the SNP had moved that motion 10 years ago, I would have accepted it. However, it has failed to acknowledge the radical shift in culture that is occurring, which is undoubtedly opening up the Prison Service and making it much more transparent. The partnership arrangements that are being put in place will have a significant effect. We accept that we have to modernise the estate and that practices are changing, which is causing problems with morale. We need to get the estates review out of the way in order to help with that. However, we should also acknowledge that the prison officers have made significant changes in their practices. I believe that they will continue to do so.
Whether they like it or not.
No, it will be a matter of discussion and negotiation.
Alex Neil said that Kilmarnock's assault figures were four times as high as those in the rest of the service. However, that comparison was with Barlinnie and not the service as a whole. Kilmarnock's assault figures fall within the broad band of assault figures. Barlinnie's figures happen to have dropped to an all-time low. We should be praising Barlinnie for that. We must be careful with the figures that we use, although there is certainly a long way to go and many things must be done.
I finish with a point that Roseanna Cunningham and Christine Grahame made. The people who are sentencing must be given confidence in the alternatives to custody. That is something that we have not yet achieved. As a consequence, we have not been able to roll out all the measures to the extent that we would wish. I welcome the Justice 1 Committee's investigation into that issue and I look forward to working with the committee to improve our prison system, an aim to which I believe we are all committed.
If anything, the debate has illustrated the fact that the Government's record in managing the Scottish Prison Service is one of abject failure. Notwithstanding the warm words that we have heard from ministers and from Labour and Liberal Democrat back benchers this morning, the Prison Service is close to breaking point in a number of key areas.
Let us be clear about the purpose of today's debate. It is to hold the Executive to account for its failure to address many of the problems that exist in the prison system. I know that that may be uncomfortable for those in the Executive parties, but that is the reality of a Scottish Parliament being able to bring a Government to account on such matters. The Labour Government has had the opportunity for some five years to start to address those issues—as the Government at Westminster, when it was in control of the Scottish Office, and for the past two and a half years as the new Scottish Executive. Those Labour members who think that today's debate is about bringing forward other ideas are wrong. It is about holding the Executive to account for its failure to address the problems in the first place.
Overcrowding and unrest, which existed during the Conservative years in a number of Scottish prisons, have been brought back to the agenda. We have heard that Aberdeen, Barlinnie, Inverness and Greenock prisons are all something like 20 per cent overcrowded. We have heard Roseanna Cunningham talk about the failure to reduce the number of prisoners at Cornton Vale. As Christine Grahame said, Cornton Vale was at one point overcrowded by about 29 per cent. We also heard from Richard Lochhead that Craiginches prison is currently around 30 per cent overcrowded. A number of members have raised points about overcrowding during the debate.
Another issue that has been highlighted is the continuation of the Victorian practice of slopping out. That practice was condemned by the Council of Europe's torture committee, which investigated the issue back in 1996 and demanded that action be taken then. However, slopping out continues to this day. Ministers have said that the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Executive have the objective of ending slopping out by 2005, but that is an aspiration and there is no clearly set date by which the practice will end. Overcrowding and slopping out are key factors that influence the ability of the Scottish Prison Service to undertake the important role of rehabilitation work.
Running alongside that, we have the prison estates review. That review has been on the books since autumn 1999. It started in December 1999. When I asked Jim Wallace about it at the Justice 1 Committee in September this year, he told me that it would be published by the end of the year. As we learned the other week, there has been a further delay, supposedly because of the change of ministers. It is my understanding that Jim Wallace has been Minister for Justice for two and a half years, so I do not see how a change of ministerial role has any part to play in the matter. I begin to wonder whether there is a report. Is the estates review continually delayed because it acts as a continuing excuse for failing to address issues? Whenever we ask about slopping out or overcrowding, we are told to wait for the estates review. It has been a most convenient excuse for the Executive over the past two years for not addressing the problems in the Scottish Prison Service.
To be fair to the Minister for Justice, I should say that he promised the estates review in the new year, although he has not said which new year.
Last year, the minister promised that the review would be published in the new year. I hope that it will be published in 2002. Perhaps the minister will confirm that it will be published then.
I happily confirm that. Michael Matheson is a sensible person and knows that slopping out is not solely about resources—it is also about logistics. Prisoners must be decanted from buildings. Will he give a time scale that he considers unacceptable for bringing an end to slopping out?
Let us be clear. The problem has gone on for many years. For five years, the Government at Westminster has been in a position to address the problem. Report after report has said why slopping out should be ended. I would not take £13 million and another £17 million out of the Prison Service budget, as the minister has done—that money could be used to resource the change that needs to take place.
I suspect that the real reason for the delay in the prison estates review is that privatisation of the Prison Service is at the heart of the Executive's prison policy. Kilmarnock prison is already privately run. Medical services in the Prison Service have been privatised. The result is that fewer doctors provide cover and there is a greater dependency on locums with no experience of working in a prison environment. In the past year, creeping privatisation of social work services has also taken place. Four prisons put their social work services out to tender. The failed Tory agenda of privatisation is at the heart of the Executive's policy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I must move on.
The Executive's amendment says that the SPS has a
"commitment to collaborating on an increasingly transparent basis with statutory and voluntary agencies to provide effective rehabilitation and through care".
That is not the SPS that I recognise or to which many members have referred. It certainly does not reflect the experience of many operational staff in the SPS.
Let us consider an example of the new collaborative working that apparently exists in the Scottish prison system. This year, the SPS put out to tender the provision of social work services at HMP Edinburgh. In describing the service, the chief inspector of prisons had said that he was
"impressed with the way that the Social Work Unit was integrated into the work of addressing the needs of the prisoner population".
What did the SPS do with a good service that was working well? It put it out to tender. A senior member of staff at the City of Edinburgh Council said that the SPS handled the negotiations in an aggressive and bullying fashion. The council withdrew the services and, for a period, the prison was without necessary social work services—it had to use a private locum company to provide them. When it realised that that did not work, it went back to the council, cap in hand, to ask it to provide the services. By that time, the experienced staff had been dispersed and only one experienced criminal justice social worker was able to go back to the team.
In his intermediate report on Saughton, the chief inspector of prisons said that, because of the social work services problems in Edinburgh prison, risk assessment for short-term sex offenders had not been provided since the termination of the council's contract and group work had not been provided as a result of the incompetent way in which the SPS had handled the whole affair.
The Executive's amendment demonstrates its continual failure to acknowledge the problems in the prison system. Ministers are abdicating their responsibilities and passing them on to officials in the SPS. The Government is failing to address the problems at the heart of the system and it is determined to continue with the right-wing privatisation agenda that started under the Conservative Government. I support the motion.