Plenary, 29 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, January 29, 2004

Official Report 686KB pdf

---

Private Prisons (Consultation)

The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-793, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on public consultation on private prisons. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the concerns of many of its members and amongst the wider public about the proposals for private prisons in Scotland; notes that applications for two new prisons have now been lodged in Addiewell and Low Moss but that as yet the public have not been informed if either or both are intended to operate as private prisons, and expresses the view that the public should be entitled to know what kind of operation is being planned for their local communities as part of any consultation and decision-making process.

I am pleased to have secured this debate this evening. The topic raises considerable local concerns in my Lothians constituency but it also touches on national issues in the fields of justice and planning policy. I thank members from political parties throughout the chamber for signing the motion, which is clear in focusing on the public's right to know whether proposed prison developments in their communities will or will not be run as private concerns. It is an issue of openness and accountability in public policy, and it is an issue of democracy.

Politicians want the public to participate in public policy but then, as happened in this case, ride rough-shod over the basic tools that the public want as part of the process. The public want all the information that they need at the right time, and to be treated with a bit of respect.

It is not very often that I quote a Labour politician, but I would like to quote from a recent publication by Robin Cook. He says:

"It is a strange and indefinable thing, community spirit. Every politician agrees that we need more of it but none of us can artificially conjure it up."

He continues:

"Yet despite all that"

deprivation, Addiewell

"has a stronger, fiercer sense of community, pride and solidarity than you'll find in Windsor or Maidenhead."

Addiewell and West Calder are strong, vibrant communities. They deserve our respect on this issue. The west of West Lothian is often the forgotten place. It is where people want to have dumping; it is where there are plans for opencasting; and now it is where there are plans for a prison.

The proposal will involve the purchase of council-owned land, so I am quite aware that it will be referred to the Scottish ministers for a final decision. That may limit the scope of what the minister can say today, particularly in relation to objections that are purely to do with planning. Serious planning concerns arise, especially because the proposed West Lothian site is above a former shale mining work. When a refuse tip was proposed in the 1980s, concerns arose that the mine shaft would have to be sealed off and that the digging out and consolidation of old workings would be necessary and very expensive. In 1988, West Lothian District Council's planning report stated that the area should be used only for low-intensity purposes. All such planning aspects will be dealt with through the normal mechanisms.

Members might recall the many statements, debates and questions on the Executive's prison estates review, the concerns that were raised about prisons being run by the private sector, and the final acceptance by the Executive that it should give the public sector the chance to bid for one of the two prisons that are to be built.

I recognise the pressures of overcrowding and I appreciate that it is absolutely essential for the barbaric practice of slopping out to be dealt with. It should be noted that at the public meeting on prisons policy that was held in October and attended by more than 300 members of the local community, people were interested in discussing wider penal policy issues. They were concerned that, as a country, we jail more people per head of population than almost any other European country. It is interesting to note that although those people have strongly held views about local amenity issues, the environment, transport, the emergency services and house prices, the vast majority of them wanted to express the view that they are not just interested in making nimby arguments.

People are concerned about whether the prison is to be a private prison for two reasons. First, there is a moral reason. Private prisons bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "the proceeds of crime". It is not right for profits to be made as a result of the state's decision to incarcerate someone. Even if members do not agree with that proposition, do they not respect the rights of others to hold and express that view?

Secondly, there are operational concerns about private prisons. Perhaps other members will comment on the experience of Kilmarnock prison: high levels of violence and fire raising, high staff turnover, and poor conditions for staff. There are also issues to do with the effects on local amenities and local emergency services. Members should remember that we are talking about the edge of the Lothian and Borders police and fire service area, and therefore the edge of the policing and fire service provision for that area.

Some people at the public meeting said that they do not care whether the prison is run by Martians, the private sector or the Scottish Prison Service, which is an interesting combination. However, a significant number of people care about who will run the prison and they are entitled to air their concerns. The problem is that our so-called democratic process does not give them information or respect.

The process clearly started with approaches to and from and negotiations between the Scottish Prison Service and West Lothian Council before the 2003 council elections, but the Labour council gave no indication that it would support the prison. On 23 May, weeks after the election, a paper suddenly appeared that proposed a joint site investigation at Addiewell by the SPS and the council. The council has an interest in the site not only because it owns the land but because it wanted to investigate the use of the site for waste management purposes. At the time, the council agreed to go ahead with the site investigation but said that there should be a full public consultation and that relevant issues that arose from that consultation should be taken into account in any subsequent applications for statutory or other consents. However, that has not happened.

The SPS is consulting—the consultation period ends tomorrow—but, according to the council, the applications themselves should be subject to the results of the consultation process. As the consultation that ends tomorrow is the only period during which non-design concerns may be raised, how can the council's requirements be met? The public do not even know whether the proposed prison is to be a private prison, and the results of the public consultation will not be made known.

Even before the consultation process ends, the Labour members of the council have agreed, by a majority, to pass the final decision to an unelected, unaccountable official. The decision will not be taken in the democratic forum of the council. Where exactly in the process is the public's voice about private prisons to be heard? This is a travesty of democracy. The process has been flawed in many ways and the people of West Lothian are being kept in the dark. Their democratic right to be heard has been denied, and that is why I lodged my motion for debate.

The issue of prisons is not just of national concern; whether the prison is to be private is of local concern. To all intents and purposes, the people of West Lothian are acting as the conscience of Scotland on the matter. That is why I ask the Executive to deny the current notice of proposed development and to instruct the SPS to resubmit full details of who will build and operate the prison—of course, the Executive will have to tell the SPS which type of prison it will be. That information should form part of any new notice of proposed development. To do that would be to act in a manner that is open and accountable and in a way that treats the public with respect. If we want the public to be part of public policy, we should give them information at the right time and treat them with respect. That is why I lodged the motion.

Today's debate raises an important issue, but I personally feel that members' business is the wrong vehicle for this debate. Given that there is a strong concern among many members about the current shape of penal policy and whether it should favour private prisons against SPS prisons, it would be far better if the debate took place during Executive or SNP debating time, or during the debating time of any other parliamentary group, so that we could have a full debate and vote on the issue. That would be the right way to conduct such a debate.

On the issue itself, let me state clearly, as I have done on public platforms in West Lothian, that my personal position is that going down the road of private prisons is not the right way forward for our penal system. I believe that the state has a moral responsibility to deal with the incarceration of citizens who are sent to jail and to rehabilitate them, so I believe there should be a move in Executive policy. I have made such representations to both the current Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, and the previous Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace. I have also had meetings with the SPS about the issue.

I recognise that there has been some movement by the Executive. When the prison estates review was first published, the original proposal was that there should be three new private prisons. The Executive recognised the Parliament's concern about that and moved its position. The current proposal is that there should be one new private prison and one new SPS-run prison. That is a step forward. I also recognise the Executive's difficulty with the cost basis of the two different types of prison, so I welcome the fact that a working group has been established within the SPS to investigate and develop a public sector model that can take us forward into the future.

Let me turn to the proposed development in West Lothian and some of the concerns about that. I disagree with Fiona Hyslop to a degree. At both the public meeting that was organised by the stop the prison campaign and the public exhibitions that were organised by the SPS, although I heard many local people object to the development, the concerns that they expressed were not primarily about whether the prison would be private or public. Rather, people were concerned about the environmental impact and about transportation links, and they had fears about the impact on other public services. All those concerns have been quite legitimately raised and should be examined. The only people who have raised concerns with me locally about whether the prison will be public or private have been activists of other political parties—primarily the Scottish Socialist Party. Therefore, I do not think that that issue is key.

Fiona Hyslop referred to the statement that was issued by the stop the prison campaign, which has organised most of the opposition to the proposal. The statement was clear:

"The majority of villagers here don't want a prison, whether it's run by the private sector, the Scottish Prison Service or Martians."

That actually reflects the view of many of those who object to the proposed developments. It is appropriate for the council to judge the objections on the basis of whether those concerns are valid. In my view, many concerns that have been expressed so far do not hold up in planning terms. Many of them are based on fears and myths rather than being genuine concerns.

Finally, I want to mention that the SNP's position is born of opportunism. Fiona Hyslop referred to the paper that the council produced on 23 March 2003. At the council committee meeting on 3 June 2003, all four SNP councillors who were present agreed with the paper that the site should be made available to the SPS. At that time, it was known that the site could be used for either a public prison or a private prison. I know that the SNP group leader was still licking his wounds at the time—it was only a few weeks after the election. Nevertheless, the position that the SNP has now adopted is based more on opportunism than on principle.

I appeal to Fiona Hyslop and the SNP not to hide behind the public-private divide. The SNP should state clearly whether it thinks that the site would be suitable for a public prison. Fiona Hyslop said that the west of West Lothian is now regarded as a place for undesirable developments. If a prison is an undesirable development, why did Fiona Hyslop's colleague Stewart Stevenson fight so doggedly to keep Peterhead prison in his constituency? Stewart Stevenson obviously believes that there are positive as well as negative aspects to prisons. Why should that be different in West Lothian as compared to Peterhead?

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents. Low Moss prison, which is located in my constituency, has been a temporary prison for 35 years. We must go back to the dictionary to find out what the word "temporary" really means, as Low Moss has been given a further temporary extension of 10 years.

The one sure thing is that we have more prisoners to house. I sometimes think that we are considering this issue the wrong way round. We are thinking about building more prisons, but perhaps we should examine how we deal with the people who go into prisons. Many offences are drug related. I visited a super place in east Glasgow called the new horizons project, which deals with drug addicts by maintaining them in their community and giving them many opportunities to find a new life there.

As I said, Low Moss has been granted a 10-year extension. East Dunbartonshire Council would have preferred to use the ground for something else—it is in the green belt—but there is no discussion of that and the council does not stand a chance. There are two debates: the debate with the community, which may be desperate to use the land for something else, about the fact that Low Moss is a temporary prison; and the debate about private prisons.

I do not think that many people know much about private prisons. When I started to do some research into the subject, I discovered that very little is known about them. Earlier we heard Wendy Alexander talk about whether what we are spending our money on is worth while. Very little proper research is aimed at finding out whether private prisons are beneficial in the long term—in the totality. They may be cheaper to build and run, but how many people who are in private prisons get a better service, do not repeat their crimes when they are released and therefore are not sent back to prison?

I have found only one decent piece of research that I think is worth while. It is by Patrick Bayer from Yale University and David Pozen from the University of Oxford and is entitled, "The Effectiveness of Juvenile Correctional Facilities: Public versus Private Management". Bayer and Pozen conclude:

"Relative to nonprofit and publicly operated facilities, for-profit facilities lead to a statistically significant increase in recidivism, but operate at a lower cost to the state per comparable individual released. Cost-benefit analysis implies that the short-run savings offered by for-profit facilities are reversed in the long-run due to increased recidivism rates."

It is important to spend money well. My grandmother used to say, "Buy cheap, buy dear in the end." We are not looking after our prisoners well. We do not want to increase the number of prisons.

Private prisons are big business. Those involved include companies such as Sodexho, which is in the catering and hotel business. What could be better for such companies than to join up with businesses that have 100 per cent bed or room occupancy? In that situation, companies do not have to work very hard to make a profit. I am not sure that it is moral to make a profit from people who have to be in prison. If the state is to spend our money—taxpayers' money—it should work hard to reduce the number of prisons. It must ensure that we look after the people who go into prison better and that we provide better facilities.

The debate should just be beginning—we are always telling our people that we want more public involvement, but the debate about private prisons has not really got started.

I see that my time is almost up, Presiding Officer, so I will run quickly through some of the issues that concern me. Kilmarnock prison is the only private prison in Scotland, and staffing of prisons is an issue that concerns me. Prisons may be understaffed and wings may sometimes be left without staff cover. That is plainly dangerous. The debate should begin and should continue. I apologise for overstepping my time.

I have been especially indulgent to constituency members, but from now on I ask members to stick to four minutes.

I will, as always, stick to the time limit.

I congratulate Fiona Hyslop on securing the debate. I utterly disagree with Bristow Muldoon, who said that the subject is not appropriate for a members' business debate. It is a very appropriate subject for a members' business debate because it not only encapsulates the concerns of two constituencies in Scotland but raises the fundamental principle of whether profit and prisons go together or whether they are difficult to reconcile.

I speak in this debate because I already have a private prison in my constituency: Bowhouse in Kilmarnock. I say to those who are considering whether to set up private prisons—be it in Addiewell, Low Moss or anywhere else—that they should look at the experience of Bowhouse in Kilmarnock: it does not have a good track record. As well as the possibility of private prisons being established at Addiewell and Low Moss—or either—the possibility of a further extension of the facility at Bowhouse is under consideration.

I will make my points as quickly as I can. First, I do not believe that profitability can be reconciled with the proper running of prisons. Why is Bowhouse cheaper to run? The main reason is that it has cut back on staffing. The ratio of staff to prisoners in Bowhouse is lamentably low. People who are recruited are young folk who are often desperate for a job and have no experience in the prison service. The latest turnover figures, which can be found in the HM prisons inspectorate for Scotland report of August last year, indicate an 18.5 per cent turnover of staff in Bowhouse prison in Kilmarnock every year. That is way above the average for the past two years. Morale among the staff is rock bottom, not least because they are among the lowest-paid prison staff in the United Kingdom.

Bowhouse prison is able to make a profit because it is run on the cheap. There is almost total reliance on technology, such as closed-circuit television cameras. When I visited Bowhouse about 18 months ago, I went to the metalwork room. One person was in charge of the room and there were 20 inmates. Obviously, in a metalwork room, the inmates have access to heavy kit and heavy equipment. There was a rotating camera, which could not see into every corner. I said to the governor that it was only a matter of time before a serious incident would take place. I regret to say that within 10 days of that visit a very serious incident took place: one prisoner assaulted another. Profits and prisons do not go together.

As for accountability, I am fed up to the back teeth—as are other members—of putting questions about Bowhouse to ministers and receiving the reply that it is not their business and that I should write to Tony Cameron, the head of the SPS. And I am fed up of the fact that when I write to Tony Cameron, he replies, "That information is private and commercially confidential, so we cannot tell you." All that I ask for is basic, raw information that we can get on every other prison in the country. Not only is Bowhouse profitable for a small number of people and unprofitable for society, it is run like a secret society.

I say to the folk in West Lothian and Low Moss that they should oppose any proposal for a private prison at every opportunity as it is the worst thing that can happen to their communities.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have always respected Fiona Hyslop as an eloquent and articulate contributor to debate in the chamber and this evening was no exception.

I commend Fiona Hyslop, because I think that in the promotion of her argument she highlighted the dilemma that exists in relation to this debate. She has—and I accept that her conviction is sincere and well held—deep concerns about the concept of private prison provision and she maintains that others share her concerns. I accept that she holds that view, although I do not agree with it, but the matter perhaps serves to indicate the kernel issues in a debate on the topic.

Two fundamental factors in relation to the provision of prison facilities in Scotland must be recognised by politicians. I say that not merely from my experience of the justice portfolio, but because I have visited various prisons in Scotland during the past six to eight months. First, it is perfectly obvious to me that we need more capacity, whether we think that that is good, bad, right, wrong, reprehensible or otherwise. That is the tragedy; we need more capacity now and we need to be taking the necessary action to provide it as soon as possible.

Secondly, the environment in a number of prisons that were constructed in Victorian times is oppressive, unproductive for prisoners and difficult to manage. I have visited Low Moss prison within the past few months and I urge members who have not been there to go. I maintain that members would be aghast at the conditions there. They would be astonished by staff morale and by the success the regime achieves, but they would be simply appalled by the prison's infrastructure and environment. Jean Turner referred to the background to that and, as far as I am concerned, anything that can be done to renew and refresh that facility is overdue.

When we consider the issues to which Fiona Hyslop alluded, it is important that we are clear about what we are talking about. If we are determined to identify priorities—and I have just outlined what must be the priority for politicians—we must accept that other, broader political issues should be considered and addressed at another time. I accept that Fiona Hyslop has articulated issues that are genuine for the purposes of debate, but I believe that such issues are genuine for debate, for example, as we approach local council or, for that matter, Scottish Parliament elections, when people can make their own judgment about what the different political parties offer and consider whether those parties' policies serve their aspirations and create the kind of Scottish society they need. It is dangerous to try to cloud the issue of the provision of an overdue facility with debate on more esoteric matters that might be legitimate matters for debate, but which in the germane consideration of what is needed now are no more than that.

I shall briefly consider Alex Neil's contribution to the debate. Of course, Alex Neil's antipathy to private prisons and in particular to the manifestation of that system in Kilmarnock is legendary. In defence of the Kilmarnock prison, I should say that when I visited it a couple of months ago I found so many positive features that I was anxious to ascertain how some of those features might be replicated elsewhere in the prison service. I quote from the 2002 Scottish Prison Service estates review:

"It has been recognised by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons that Kilmarnock can deliver not only effective services, but can often be innovative. For example, this resulted in the formal recognition of twelve items of best practice in the formal inspection report (March 2001). This compared to eight at Edinburgh and four at Greenock, both of which had inspections during the same period."

My impression of Kilmarnock prison was that the environment was beyond comparison with other prisons' estate. It was bright, modern and manageable. The prison population confirmed that they found it agreeable—in so far as it is possible to find a prison environment agreeable—and their morale seemed good. There is much to commend in the provision of private prison facilities in Scotland. Politicians urgently need to address what society needs now. In doing that, we must have strong regard to the best interests of prisoners—believe it or not—and we can do more and better for prisoners than we do just now.

I apologise to Miss Goldie for the loss of the clock halfway through her speech.

There seem to be three elements to the argument in this evening's debate. The first is whether we should have prisons at all. The second is whether the prison should be private or run by the state. The third was raised by Dr Jean Turner and I would like to pursue it—it is whether we are pursuing the right policy in building more prisons or whether it would be far more sensible to apply the same sum of money to reducing the prison population using a whole host of methods that are well known and well tried in other countries, but which we seem to be slow in adopting.

I should declare an interest: I am a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform. Also, I am no stranger to prisons: many years ago I taught guitar in the long-stay unit in Saughton and I have visited other prisons in Scotland.

To make my argument on private finance initiative prisons, I will refer to the English experience, which appears to me to be appalling. In June 2003, a report highlighted staffing crises in seven PFI prisons in England and Wales, which account for about 5 per cent of the prison estate and 7 per cent of the prison population. The report noted the extremely high turnover of staff in those prisons, which lost on average 28 per cent of their staff in 2001-02. Rye Hill prison had the worst record: nearly 40 per cent of its staff left the prison during the year. On average, public prisons lost just 6 per cent of staff in the same year.

What is the Scottish context? An article in Scotland on Sunday on 28 July 2002 stated:

"Taxpayers have unwittingly subsidised the private firm running Scotland's flagship private prison with a £700,000 handout that accounts for almost 70% of the operator's profits."

We are chucking money into the pockets of the operators, hand over fist. The article continued:

"For the past two years, as Premier Prisons ran up profits of around £1m at Kilmarnock Prison, the Executive has been meeting the cost of staff and business rates."

That is not a private prison; that is a state-subsidised prison that gives profits to the private sector.

We are far beyond the point at which we should have engaged in a thorough reform of the Scottish penal system. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the European Union: the figure in September 2000 was 115 prisoners for every 100,000 members of the general population, compared with 87 per 100,000 in the Netherlands and 89 per 100,000 in France. The average daily prison population has increased threefold, from around 2,000 in 1950 to 5,869 in 2000.

The important point is that 82 per cent of prisoners have sentences of six months or less. They are minor offenders who are caught in the revolving door of offending because they have never learnt to survive in the outside world. As is done with such people in other countries, we could help them, as early as possible, not to reoffend. In fact, they should be given help not to reoffend the first time they go to prison. Dr Jean Turner will be glad to hear that, on this issue, there are plenty of examples and a lot of research to show that reoffending rates can be reduced by up to 70 per cent through relatively simple and inexpensive strategies.

I welcome the debate that Fiona Hyslop has launched. Our prison performance is one of the worst in Europe and the more we debate it and try to get it improved, the better.

I agree with Robin Harper that we need a review of penal policy. If we build more jails, we will fill them—life is like that. If we do not build more jails, we must get a grip on the situation. The courts will have to work better and we will need more investment in alternatives to custody, early intervention, bail hostels and that sort of measure. We are doing work on those issues—I welcome the recent opening of a centre in Glasgow for women with drug and alcohol problems, which will help to keep some women out of jail. However, we need more and more of that sort of project. If we get a grip on the whole situation, we will not need to build new jails.

There is a lot of dispute about public versus private. I share people's concerns about private jails, but that debate to some degree masks the debate that we should be having about the prison service as a whole. As well as reviewing penal policy, we should review our prison system, both public and private. One of the many bad parts of our system is the fact that quangos and arm's-length units are totally unaccountable. There is no democratic control over the Scottish Prison Service. It is nominally responsible to the minister, but from experience of watching the situation, I know that that does not work. Nobody has any control whatsoever. It is well known that the Scottish Prison Service would like to build considerably more than two jails.

We should examine some of the things that go on in jails. Why is there so little education? There are good people involved in good educational programmes, but nobody goes to them. The number of prisoners who go into education programmes is very small. All research shows that illiteracy and innumeracy are major problems for prisoners, but we simply do nothing about it. We provide no training that equips them for jobs. They go along to workshops, as Alex Neil described, and they are occupied, but there is little relevant training that might help them to get a job in future.

We need to examine some of our shibboleths. I have spoken in favour of the STOP 2000 programme and anger management programmes, but there is no evidence to show that they do any good. We should examine what goes on in jails, why it happens, and whether it can be done better.

We could explore the idea of local democratic control. I am not suggesting that jails should be brought under the control of local councils, but instead of the well-meaning but rather toothless visiting committees, we should have much more local say in what goes on in jails. We should have a democratic element, which could address issues such as whether there should be a jail at all. There are a lot of issues to explore, and I welcome the chance to do that.

I am minded to accept a motion without notice to allow a brief extension of up to five additional minutes to allow everyone on-screen to participate. It cannot be any more than that.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that Members' Business on 29 January 2004 be extended by up to 5 minutes.—[Fiona Hyslop.]

Motion agreed to.

I am grateful to the minister for agreeing to that extension.

I congratulate Fiona Hyslop on securing the debate. Like Alex Neil, I feel that Bristow Muldoon's suggestion that it is inappropriate to have a members' business debate on public consultation on private prisons is entirely inappropriate in itself. I do not know where Bristow Muldoon has been, but we have had a variety of debates on the prison service. I do not know whether he has bothered to contribute to any of them, but we have had lengthy debates in the chamber and the justice committees have carried out detailed inquiries into the prison system.

I do not dispute that we are discussing an important issue—it is worthy of debate and I mentioned my concerns about private prisons in my speech—but a members' business debate can only draw issues to the attention of the Executive. It cannot change the policy of the Parliament or influence the policy of the Executive. If the SNP wants such a debate, it should use its time to that effect.

Bristow Muldoon might be surprised to hear that we have in the past done as he suggests. I do not know why he did not bother to contribute. Only in November we had a debate on the Justice 1 Committee's report on alternatives to custody, most of which focused on the prison service. That would have been another opportunity for Bristow Muldoon to contribute to the debate on penal reform in Scotland.

Prisons play far too central a role in our criminal justice system. Too often they are looked upon as the solution to tackling the problem of crime, whereas at times they are part of the problem. We all know that we have a prisons estate of which we are not proud. Some of it needs to be refurbished, some of it needs to be improved, and some of it should be removed completely. We expect our prison population to increase by another 16 per cent over the next 10 years—that is to happen on top of our record prison population which is, on average, larger than those of many other European countries.

As Robin Harper correctly said, 82 per cent of our prisoners are in prison for less than six months. With 50 per cent remission, they come out within three months without having had any opportunity to address their offending behaviour. Much more work has to be done to examine how we can more effectively tackle individuals' offending behaviour.

Just this week, that right-wing progressive, the Home Secretary, announced in London that he was going to introduce weekend prisons. Periodic detention is a measure that helps to deal with offending behaviour much more effectively than just locking people up for 24 hours a day. There is also bags of evidence to demonstrate that community disposals are much more effective than prison in dealing with offending behaviour.

The minister will be aware that, after the Justice 1 Committee had produced its report on the prison estates review—the report was not very complimentary of the review—the Minister for Justice at that time gave a commitment to the Parliament. He said that two prisons had to be built and that one would be private, while the public sector would have the option of bidding against the private sector for the other, and that there would be a third option at some point in the future. Now that we are at the stage at which two planning applications for prisons are going before local authorities, I would have thought that, we should at the very least know which of those prisons is likely to be a private prison. Why does a culture of secrecy continue to surround the Scottish Prison Service and the way in which it operates?

Alex Neil highlighted the fact that any time someone asks a question about Kilmarnock prison, they are told that it is a matter for the prison service down there. Any time someone asks the Minister for Justice about the SPS, they are told that it is a matter for Tony Cameron. However, any time they ask him about such matters, he tries to tell them as little as he can. To have a culture of secrecy within a public agency such as the SPS is not acceptable, so the Executive must at some point take on some responsibility for changing that culture.

The people in West Lothian and the people in the Low Moss area have a right to know what the SPS intends to do. I hope that ministers will show some backbone by taking on the Prison Service and telling it to change by ending the culture of secrecy.

If members will forgive me for saying so, it is very nice to see that so many old lags of prison debates are present once again, but of course we are always prepared to welcome new inmates to the madhouse.

I ask the member to refresh Mr Matheson's recollection by confirming that I was present in the chamber for Jim Wallace's statement on the prison estates review and that I questioned the minister. I have met justice ministers to discuss the issue on a number of occasions.

I am sure that, if the member says that he was there, there is no doubt that he was there, as he is an honourable man. At that time, I wonder whether he knew as much about Addiewell as any of the rest of us.

In the past 18 months or so, I have visited five prisons, but unlike Robin Harper, I have not been giving guitar tuition. An explanation of why recidivism rates in Saughton are as high as they are might be that people want to go back to complete the excellent tuition that Robin has been giving them. I visited a private prison in Wales at Parc, which is run by Group 4, a hybrid prison in France, at Bapaume, which is about an hour north of Paris, and three prisons in Scotland—Saughton, the young offenders institution at Polmont and my local prison at Peterhead, which I visit regularly.

Among those prisons, there is a mixture of public and private provision. All those prisons—whether private, hybrid or public—contribute to their local communities, so why is it important that the local community be informed of what kind of prison is proposed at the decision-making or consultation point? I will suggest a number of reasons, beginning with the sustainability in the long term of the different models.

It is no news to any member that I am antipathetic to private prisons. They involve long-term contracts with long-term costs. For example, the occupancy rate—the loading—in our private prisons throughout the United Kingdom is locked in for 30 years. The French do things better—they have shorter contracts and they pay only for the places that are occupied. The point is that, if we are successful in reducing the prison population—a goal which I hope we all share—such contracts could be economic albatrosses around our necks. The possibility is that the prisons have to be filled because we are paying for them. One way or the other, that situation promotes prison closures.

I do not know whether that will mean closing a private prison, buying one out because closure is too expensive or closing a public prison because we have capacity in the private sector that we feel we have to use, but it will influence the long-term viability and employment prospects for communities. That is one reason why communities have a right to know.

We do not properly understand the economics of private prisons. The borrowing for Kilmarnock in the long term is running at something in excess of 8 per cent—I believe that it is 8.75 per cent—and the mezzanine finance, which was part of the construction process, was 13.75 per cent. We know that Andy Kerr does not know what he is paying for the Government's borrowing: in the previous debate, I asked him that question and he said that he did not know. It is therefore extremely difficult to work out the issues, and that is why such information should be in the public domain. That would bring more people to the argument, inform the public debate and help us generally.

It is a bit rich of the Scottish Socialist Party to be campaigning in West Lothian. I see that they are on their holidays again; only two SSP members were here at decision time, and none is here now.

Perhaps one way we can break out of the problem is to publish all public sector contracts. The Executive would get a better deal on renewal if companies saw what they had to bid against; publication would inform public debate generally, and so doing could easily be made a condition of doing business with Government.

I can confirm what ministers have already said in the Parliament about the Executive's plans for new prisons, but, as I am sure members appreciate, I cannot comment in detail on the outline planning proposals. That would be completely inappropriate, as those proposals are the subject of public consultation and others will have to make decisions about them through the normal planning process.

Our current position is the one that Jim Wallace announced on 5 September 2002, following the prison estates review: two new 700-place prisons will be built. One will be privately built and operated, as members have indicated; the other is our challenge to the management and unions within the Scottish Prison Service to bridge the gap with the private sector on costs and delivery. If they prove that they can do that—if they can compete fairly—they will get the contract, but the competition must be fair. We are giving them a fair chance; the outcome is not a given and the Prison Service must prove the case.

Regardless of who builds and runs the new prisons, they will be designed to the highest standard of specification. We will build on some of the lessons that have been learned from building and operating the most modern accommodation in the Scottish prison estate

Is the minister saying to us that he has turned his mind against separating the contracts for the building and operation of the prison? Will there always be one contract?

No. I am saying that the position is as Jim Wallace announced and that we will develop and unveil plans on the basis of what has been agreed. A number of considerations will be taken into account.

We have modern accommodation in the Scottish prison estate—we have Kilmarnock, as a number of members have said, but we also have new halls at Edinburgh and Polmont—and it is important to develop such new facilities throughout the Scottish prison estate. The specification that we are considering is driven by the need to ensure secure custody, good order and appropriate levels of care; it is also driven by the need to provide the opportunities to challenge offending behaviour in an estate that is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

I will address some of the illogical fears that have been articulated that a privately operated prison is somehow riskier than a public prison. Before any potential private sector operator has any chance of being awarded the contract, it has to satisfy the Scottish Prison Service that it can meet the requirements of the specification. That common specification will also mean that the decision about private or public operation is fair and based on a level playing field for the public and private sectors.

The public sector team will need to show that it can do best in terms of timing, cost, quality and delivery. The bridging-the-gap team, which is made up of representatives of SPS management and trade unions, has already established a strong working partnership and, building on its extensive prison experience, has been preparing itself for the competition for one of the two new prisons.

Much has been said about the performance record of private prisons in general and about Kilmarnock in particular. To keep the issue in perspective, we should remember that the first few years of any new prison tend to be a settling-in time, as staff gain experience of working together and as they develop systems that best suit the local situation and the mix of prisoner population and staff. The most recent inspection report on Kilmarnock showed continuing improvement in those areas that had been indicated as requiring attention.

At the behest of ministers, the SPS is moving towards a system of contracts for managing all its prisons. Those contracts will specify the services and standards that the SPS expects from each prison, broadly reflecting the relationship that Kilmarnock prison has with the SPS. That will allow more realistic comparisons between the performances of different establishments in the public and private sectors.

The decision that two new prisons were needed was made in full awareness of plans for alternatives to custody. Everything that Cathy Jamieson has said on the matter indicates that she is fully committed not only to keeping people out of prison where possible and to preparing adequately those who are in prison for full re-engagement in society, but to taking the decisive measures that are needed to incarcerate people who deserve to be incarcerated for the sake of the public and because of the crimes that they have committed.

We believe that the alternatives to custody could, and will, be successful in curbing the currently rising prison population. However, even if there was no debate on that, we would still need to replace old and outdated prison accommodation. Some of the accommodation in prisons in Scotland today is utterly unacceptable, as many members will know, having visited prisons. We must also at the earliest possible date end the undesirable practice of slopping out.

In a debate about prisoner management, I remind Parliament that all prisoners in Scotland remain the responsibility of the Scottish Prison Service, irrespective of whether they are located in public or private prisons. Members will appreciate that the process involved in determining the planning application means that I cannot comment in detail on either of the two applications.

I appreciate that the minister cannot comment on the planning applications. He mentions that the bridging-the-gap team is already in operation and is considering options. In the past, the Executive has said that the first prison of the two to have its planning application approved would be the privately built, privately run one. Is that still the case or are other criteria being used to judge which of the locations—Addiewell or Low Moss—should host the privately run prison and so be open to tender?

Nothing has changed from anything that we have said previously. Two planning applications are going through at roughly the same time. A decision will be made in due course about which one of the prisons will be private and—if the bridging-the-gap team is successful—which one will not. However, if that team is unsuccessful for any reason, that other prison might also be private.

I make it clear that the outline planning application and notices of proposed development are for two new prisons and have nothing to do with how those prisons are funded. The issues to be considered during the planning process are the same, irrespective of the funding mechanism. If and when any applications are given the go-ahead, detailed planning applications will follow. Those will be submitted to the relevant local authority. At that time, it will be clear who will be carrying out the development concerned.

I firmly believe that the actions that we are taking will help us to create a prison service that is fit for purpose and that provides decent living conditions for prisoners and decent working conditions for staff. The facilities that we will provide will give the maximum opportunity to challenge offending behaviour and will ensure that the prison service plays its full part in helping to create a safer Scotland.

What we do and the quality of what we do is more important to us than who does it. However, I will reflect back to the Minister for Justice a number of the points that have been made. Fiona Hyslop said that this is not a nimby debate; I accept that she is not opposed to the idea of there being a prison in Addiewell or elsewhere and that her principled objection is to private finance and not to the prison itself. I will communicate those points to the minister.

Meeting closed at 18:00.